Y. V. PRASAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned notice dtd. 31/1/2023 at Annexure 'A' issued by respondent No.7-Assistant Executive Engineer, Marathahalli Sub- Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the respondent-BBMP for securing a building licence and sanction plan. Accordingly, during the year 2018, the plan was sanctioned, in terms of Annexure 'P' permitting the petitioner to put up construction on a portion of the property. The licence was valid between 16/11/2018 and 15/11/2020. The petitioner accordingly took up construction. However, by issuing the impugned notice, respondent No.7-Assistant Executive Engineer sought to cause obstruction in the construction work undertaken by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel submits that it is stated in the impugned notice that the petitioner has taken up construction in the portion of the property which was marked as 'land left for proposed road'. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has not taken up construction in the said portion of the property, although it belongs to the petitioner. However, the petitioner cannot be prevented from putting up construction in terms of the sanction plan.