PREMILA NALINI GRUBB Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard Sri S. Shaker Shetty, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri K.N. Putte Gowda, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2/Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) as well as Sri L.P.E. Rego, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, apparently, the lis brought before Court is over the garage on the South Eastern corner of the immovable property in question permitted to be retained by the respondent/BBMP while according sanction for construction of a multistorey residential building with a basement floor.

(2.) IN the first instance, the BBMP having taken action on the basis of a complaint lodged by 3rd respondent, one of the occupants of the apartment complex, led to proceeding under Section 321 followed by a confirmation order under Sub -section (3) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, ('the Act' for short), which when, subject matter of appeal under Section 443 -A of the said Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the confirmation order was affirmed, leading to filing W.P. No. 35246/2003, whence a learned Single Judge by Order dated 27th February 2004 quashed the entire proceeding reserving liberty to the 3rd respondent to take such appropriate action against the petitioner before a competent Civil Court.

(3.) THEREFORE there is an order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 35246/2003, Annexure -A reserving liberty to the 3rd respondent to take such appropriate action against petitioner in a competent Civil Court and a Judgment and decree, of the learned Single Judge in RFA No. 1725/2005 dated 26th April 2013 reserving liberty to the 3rd respondent to initiate action in accordance with law in the matter of ensuring set -back areas meant as safety measure and for maintenance.