DATTA V J vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

PRAKASH CHANDRA S/O H SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.12/7-1 16TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE–560040

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQURE BANGALORE–560 002

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LAGGERE SUB-DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560058

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESWARINAGAR SUB-DIVISION

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE K.R.C CIRCLE BANGALORE–560002

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LAGGERE SUB DIVISION NO.28, 10TH BLOCK, I CROSS NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE–72

The facts, in brief, are as under:

It is an admitted fact that on the basis of that complaint, BBMP initiated proceeding under sub-section (1) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. After issuance of notice to the appellant under sub-section (2) thereof, on the passing of a provisional order and on hearing the appellant, a confirmatory or final order dated 28.01.2014 was passed by BBMP under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the said Act, directing the appellant to remove the illegal construction put up on the aforesaid property. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tribunal” for the sake of brevity) under Section 443-A of the said Act. The said appeal is pending adjudication and it is stated at the Bar that it is listed tomorrow i.e. 19.06.2015.

The 1st respondent, being aggrieved by the alleged illegal construction put up by the appellant, had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.31942 of 2014 seeking a

In the appeal filed by the appellant before the tribunal, an application for an interim order was sought. The tribunal, however, refused grant of any interim order.

Learned Single Judge, in view of the passing of the order in Writ Petition No.31942 of 2014 filed by respondent No.1 herein, also dismissed the other Writ Petition No.28862 of 2014 filed by the appellant against refusal of grant of interim order by the tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has filed the aforesaid two appeals.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the material on record.

What emerges from the aforesaid narration of facts and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties is the fact that as against the order passed by BBMP

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the order of the learned Single Judge is implemented, then the appeals filed by the appellant would be rendered infructuous.

We find considerable force in the said submission. In the circumstances, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant before the tribunal must be heard expeditiously and we direct the tribunal to do so. In the meanwhile, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to demolition of certain portions of the building put up by the appellant is set aside. Any demolition to be made would be only after the appeal before the tribunal is adjudicated upon and dependant upon the judgment to be rendered by the tribunal. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal, both parties are directed to maintain status quo.

The writ appeals are disposed in the aforesaid terms.

In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, the applications in Writ Appeal No.3525/2014 would not survive for consideration and are ordered to be filed.