I 1-111 .1011 A 1')' A A 1'l'f*i'.~.AV'I"- V'I3)'l_'.\
K1" F " N 1'nr«.n AT B1111';-._I1'1I_._;»_1';;:a
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL
BEFORE
TI-IE HQNBLE M12. JUSTICE Aa~Ht>K
1. SR1 B.M.RAVI NA'l'I$)'£JB' N
am L£A|'FE'.Pv€.r"'aR1A1PP.An. - ~
AGED ABQU-'T 4:3 YEARS-.¢VA"~~».L' Bk
2. SNfF.'l\'i1A'N;AfUI;;A.V L
W[0--VB.'M.;;RAVINAID'U L
.NAGEp1ApBo'uT. SQYEARS" V
LEELAKRISHNA N-[LAVA
_ }v':'uJ NI NARA'i"!'aNAPPA_ LA 'YOU?
. _ 3fi;NGAl.0'RE-560 097.
'N 1., THE COMMISSIONER
19T.B!_~0CK.a DODDA BOMMASANDRA VI LAGE
HGELI, ViB'Yl3 F\i'V"I't"'|l'3U'I'<'l'\ run:
A A Wt-Friawfins
'. firsir SR1: C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADV.,)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE. HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
'v'lB'fARAI'u"'."APU RA SUBEDIXHSION
BRUHATH BANGALORE
MAHANRGBRA PBLEKE
BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:S.J.PURANIK, ADV., FOR C/R1)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARrI(3L§5;jn.§2’2s
AN!) 227 on THE CQNSTIZWJTIGN or INDIA _EfR1AY.ii’–l.G’«TU«
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT PRoeEE3)”wIrH-‘THE 4_
DEi’viGLITIOl’u’ PROCESS AGAINST I ”
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCIEQ oN”e–PRoPER’rY
BEARING No.60, KHA-T-i–IA N0.1[187j6(i(;’ 1, ‘SIT=Uf:I*~s_n
DODDABOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, VYELAHIKNKA. HGBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK VIDYARANYAPURA _
BANGALORE-97 WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND-
ETC. »
THIS PETITION~.ff3QhiINGvi” ®N;”FQR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY,-1’ ‘Ins eomwrsi MADE THE
FOLLOWENG: ”
a writ of mandamus
direet_.ing– *respo1*Idents I not to proceed with the
demolition process the petitioners’ residential
+
‘aisiidizig constructed on Jae prep-ere,’ bearing No.60,
I 187/60; 1, situated at Doddabommasandra
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Post, Banga1ore–97 .
.n 4 1-¢l\1h1An Qlihillurhrlbl thug ‘LJECIHHL M’ I?’
4. 311 C.R.&p swI:u11y.. tut: 1!: 1.1 d uuLuJ,”‘fiI
H for the petitioners submits that the provisional order,
dated 12.2.2008 (Annexure-G) is passed under Section
321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,
1976 (‘the said Act’ for short). The respondents, without
HEM
_ _;l-
passing the final order under Sec n 321{3;-5__’ft1:e’–«sa.u’ .
Act, are attempting to demolish’ t1_1’e”‘ ” ”
question. He further submits that ‘to
demolish the building waamsistea; tiixeidrespencients-.V: e
h”ve filed the en”-*
3. srr; men {leamed counsel
appearingiiforc respendent No.1 submits
that ‘ premature; the question of
demeiisrin” mgr?-.ui!idi.*.1g’ sees no. arise ‘…..hoI..- pa-..-…ng
the fin a1xorder.1JI1(ier Secfion 321(3) ofthe said Act.
a. iiieeordixig the respective submissions made
it leagjned counsel for the parties, I dispose of this
petitioners’ objections and thereafter pass
appropriate final order under Section 32 1(3) of the said
Act. It is made clear that no demolition of the building
i.. qu_.sti..– is nerr_n_issiwL w_t11out passm the final
I…
order under S”-tion 321(3) of tn” ‘””d met. If, as and
5. No order as to costs. A
VGR