IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE mth DAY OF' JULY 2O09:Ta.
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. PD. DINAKARAN, -
AND
THE HONBLE MRJUSTTOE V.O.sAT3HA'H:T "
WRIT APPEAL NO-:{2331_§/2332 S
BETWEEN; " V' 1' "
1 SRIPGOVINDAPRA' . .
S/O PADMANABHASHET .
AOED ABOUT 6.30 ' "
No.27; RUTDRA LAY_OUT, " '
V
2 PRABHAKAR HM,
s / O VENKATA.R}'.MSH--E1'
AGED ABOUT 5% ':JEA»RS,
110.28, RUDRA' LAYOUT,
._':%MATH1KERE,~~ ..... .. »
" « 'EANc}ALORE-560054 ........... ..APPELLANTS
{LE3} 'S__ri : ~Rj'HA-'T.AR;AJ, ADVOCATE. )
' AND
f: n STATE OF KARNATAKA
V. ' 'BY ITS SECRETARY,
= URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.s.EU1LD1NG
BANGALORE--560001
2 THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE
3 K. RAMAN MENON j;
S /O LATE T. AC1-IUTHA MENOPE *
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS *
R/AT HOUSE No.5, ' '
SITE NO.25,RUDRA LAY'O_UT
IVIATHIKERE,
BANGALORE--5{l"'w~I_ _ ,.g.}'~RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: B SRINIVAS FOR C,’¥<3 1 . _ . _
SRI.B.VEERAPBA GAFOR )1 I
THESE-.'-WR*1T_–:_APPEALS ._AI~'7§E FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA_.."BIGH–. cOURT…A£.:T*~._PRAY1NG TO SET ASIDE
THE _1p'ORD.E-1=I1'.:.;,_ PAS'SE"D ~ ___I_N THE WRIT PETITION
NO.19943';'e2(§.O7 I:;ATED_I2–O5–'2oO9
ll'I'1'1le«sel Ociming up for Preliminary Hearing
On this day, SAlBH}'_HI.'Ip'".'J_., delivered the following.
lJUDGMENT
appeals are filed by respondents 3 and 4 in
being aggrieved by the order dated
12.6.2'0D€l:'vTherein the learned Single Judge of this court
I has . "disposed of the writ petition directing the second
–..Vl’reSipOndent–BBl\/1P to implement the order dated 15.7.2005
\.79
at Annexures–A and B by the State in the letter and spirit
and take action against the Officers concerned for their non-
implementation at the earliest.
2. The third respondent
W.P.No.199-43/2007 seeking forfpxa cj.ire¢ti4oon{to’=.the*-seccfrnd
respondent–BB1\/{P to immediately iae._ti’L1pon,and::impiemeritd.
the orders passed by the State.ii’GovernmeintV’:iniikproceeding
No.AE3 79 dated 1S.17:2’G.O5_’yideiPinnlexureswfiiiiand B to the
writ petition. It is averredtin pet~ition.:iV_’that he is the owner
in possessioi1″ar_id er1;ioyx1:eht”‘of’theypitoperty bearing No.5
(Sim:yi«I3o;V2’S)i{5.1§ud%ja’ tia_=,(t)”ut, Nfathikere, Bangalore. He has
consti”uetedia- property of ground floor and
first flooria-nd’ he residiing therein with his family members
is payiing—taxes to the second respondent and the
V .=pirope’r.tyista:nd.s in his name in the relevant registers of the
averred that respondents 13 and 4 being the
‘.~()f..V the property bearing No.27 and 28, adjacent to the
it property of the petitioners on the eastern side have put up
“gtonstruction of commercial cornpiex and as easementary
Q);
order dated 15.7.2005 allowed the appeal filed by the second
respondent and directed the action to be taken in respect of
the deviated portions of the construction of corninercial
complex put up by respondents 3 and 4. Respondents};
4 have also filed o.s.No.s674/1999 and o.s;’:§§.8e7S}i’:§§r9i”‘
before the court of City Civil Judige,”Banga1oreV”against the
second respondent and an interirngoider of ‘statL3.s~. qi1o~..was
passed in the said suits and’thepsaidisuitsare ipendinig and’
the petitioner upon th,e..imp1eadin_g– applicatioiafiled him was
impleaded as a party_t’etot._vit~h:e iis1i_1iti’apnd despite the
unauthorised _c’o.nstr*._.1ctii01:i:: violation of the
sanctioned has been taken by the second
respondent 8gaii}.SitV’lfCSI1it’Jt.fl(ii€ntS 3 and 43 and petitioner has
gimiznii representatiuan on 17.8.2005, 26.10.2006 and
26;12_i2iQQ§5q_._vand no steps have been taken on the said
._re’preseri’tatioinVs” and therefore, the writ petition is filed, being
aggrieved-liy the inaction of respondent ‘No.2 in not taking
steps as per the order dated 15.7.2005.
\.5>
6
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the learned AGA., appearing for respondent No.1
and the learned counsel appearing for responderit’–:N_’o.i2′.lby
order dated 12.6.2009 held that the order dated
was not been implemented and .__the
appearing for the BBMP was una’nl-e”to sholwgthe lprelcise
reason for non–implementation—of thevorder ?’l.2005.i’
and evenaccording to the 1_e:a”rned._Vcotinselgappearing for
respondents 3 and “modified{_plarr–.’was~ issued in the year
2008 and it is not fort, weofiing7a_s:_to orders were not
implerneritedvin. and accordingly, the learned
Single iiudgev the writ petition directing the
to impienient the order dated 15.7.2005 of the State
‘initheilletteitqand spirit and take action against the Officers
.ccS_nce’rn:ed_ fo’rV””their non–implernentation, at the earliest.
Being l.1ge’eggfieved by the said order dated 12.512009,
respondents 3 and 4 have preferred this appeal.
is?»
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants, learned counsel appearing for”‘:lea§Jfeator–
respondent No.3 and the learned Governrsient-.l&d§roea_tel*
appearing for respondent No.1. –
5. Learned counsel ;a_ppeari–n.g*– for 1.the..ilappelllantsfi
submitted that the learned Slnglealudge’ was notljiustified in
ordering irnplementat.ion.__of tphemorde_rVldated 15l.l’7.2lO05 as the
plan has been modified and therefor_é’,vAA.f’he’g’..order passed by
the learned S:ing.:l_eV:’.3udge .l.iablel’to_”be_.__sTet aside.
6. ~ lalppeiaring for the c:aveator–
responderlt l\¥oV;l3-:’thet petitioner argued in support of the
order of the llearne_dlEl3ingl’e- udge.
Learned'””‘”(}overnment Advocate appearing for
also argued in support of the order passed
lay the Single Judge.
‘V55