N.D.DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Private Limited Company is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of Confirmation Order dtd. 5/3/2022 bearing [xxxxxxx] and Provisional Order bearing [xxxxxxxxxxxx] dtd. 14/2/2022 passed by respondent No.3.

(2.) Heard learned counsel Sri.Shai Ismail Zabiulla for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Praveen Kumar for Sri.H.Devendrappa, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.Rajendra for impleading applicant in I.A.No.1/2022 which is filed for impleading the proposed respondent as respondent No.4. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 3rd respondent passed Provisional Order dtd. 14/2/2022 under Sec. 248(1) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short "2020 Act") alleging unauthorized construction in the land consisting in Sy.Nos.117/2, 115/2, 118/1 and 119 of Doddakannalli village, Ward No.150 of BBMP. The petitioner was provided 7 days time to file objections to the Provisional Order dtd. 14/2/2022. Learned counsel would submit that 3rd respondent passed Confirmation Order on 5/3/2022 under Sec. 248(3) of 2020 Act, confirming the Provisional Order dtd. 14/2/2022. It is submitted that, well before passing of the Confirmation Order, the petitioner had submitted its objections dtd. 17/2/2022 on 2/3/2022 to the 3rd respondent in terms of Annexures-F and G to the writ petition. Thus, he submits that even though the petitioner submitted objections to the Provisional Order before the Confirmation Order was passed, respondent No.3 failed to consider the objections of the petitioner and proceeded to pass Confirmation Order. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to the order dtd. 2/2/2022 passed in W.P.No.334/2022 wherein this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to reply to the notice dtd. 27/1/2022 under Sec. 313 of 2020 Act. Therefore, he submits that within the time granted by this Court, the petitioner had submitted its reply on 2/3/2022. Non- consideration of objections filed by the petitioner has prejudiced its case and if 3rd respondent had considered the objections of the petitioner, 3rd respondent would have arrived at a different conclusion. Thus, he prays for consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner by setting aside the Provisional Order and Confirmation Order passed by the 3rd respondent.