ARYA HAMSA GRANDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. COMMISSIONER, BBMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Vinay Huttappa.K.S., for Sri.Goutham Shreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Jagadeeshwara.N.R., for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the writ petition papers.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court questioning Annexure-A dtd. 9/11/2012, wherein the respondent-BBMP has directed the petitioner remove the alleged compound that has been constructed on the Rajakaluve, failing to remove the same, the petitioner was informed that the respondents would initiate action under the provisions of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 2020 Act). Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not constructed compound wall on the Rajakaluve and the petitioner has also not encroached the Rajakaluve as alleged by the BBMP. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents have to initiate action under Sec. 229 of 2020 Act to which they have failed to initiate.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.Jagadeeshwara.N.R., would submit that Annexure-A notice only calls upon the petitioner to remove the compound wall, failing which he is informed that appropriate action would be initiated under the provisions of 2020 Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has no cause of action to challenge Annexure- A, notice and the petitioner shall have to reply to the notice which is to be considered by the BBMP.