RAMAMURTHY N. Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioner claims to be owner of land covered under site No.3, in old survey No.140 of Nagavara village, a portion of the said land was proposed to be acquired by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] for the purpose of widening the existing Tannery road to 24 mtr width. It is in that background, a portion of the property measuring 8 mtr x 30 ft was given up in favour of the BBMP for widening. Thereafter the petitioner is stated to have demolished the said portion and plastered the remaining portion installing a rolling shutter.

(3.) The BBMP, on a complaint filed by the brother of the petitioner viz., respondent No.4, issued a notice under Sec. 321(1) of the Municipal Corporation Act ['Act' for short] contending that the petitioner has altered the premises without obtaining plan sanction which was followed by 321(3) confirmatory order which was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeal No.226/2011 which came to be dismissed on 20/2/2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the KAT, as also 321(1) and 321(3) notice issued by the Corporation.