MUNIYAMMA Vs. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition and without hearing them an order has been passed under Ss. 33 and 33-A of the BDA Act, wherein it has been ordered to demolish the construction put-up on the property. For that reason, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to set-aside the said order.

(2.) Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents upon instructions of the Assistant Executive Engineer, who is present before this Court, submits that the properties concerned are BDA properties and not owned by the petitioners and that they have illegally encroached upon the same and put-up some construction. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that petitioners were not heard before passing the order.

(3.) Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the impugned orders were to be treated as show cause notice to the petitioners and petitioners are directed to submit all the necessary records along with representation, if any to the first respondent within a period of one week and a further direction is issued to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, the following:-