SARASWATHI MANJUNATH Vs. COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order passed under Sec. 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 1976 Act) and order dtd. 15/4/2015 in Appeal No.514/2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru whereby the order passed under Sec. 321(3) of 1976 Act is confirmed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.Prakasha for Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner in possession of site bearing No.50, formed out of Sy.No.17/1, 27/1 and 27/2 of Avalahalli, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru totally measuring 55.75 meters. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained sanction plan for constructing the residential building in terms of the sanction dtd. 24/2/2010, in terms of Annexure-B. It is the case of the petitioner that residential premise was built in terms of the sanction plan and in terms of the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, 2003. It is his submission that Smt.R.Indiramani, neighbour of the petitioner complained alleging unauthorized construction. He submits that there is no deviation from sanction building plan and the suit between Smt.R.Indiramani and petitioner is pending with regard to encroachment. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order under Sec. 321 (3) of 1976 passed only to satisfy the neighbour Smt.R.Indiramani and there is no deviation from the sanction plan. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellate Authority without taking note of the contentions of the petitioner, in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds urged by the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition.