MARAPPA Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mr. Marappa, has challenged the legality of the order dated 31-3-2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the learned Tribunal has confirmed the notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'the B.B.M.P.') under Section 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that by order dated 1-12-1978, the Special Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District granted a parcel of land, to the extent of 2 acres, in survey No. (Old No.87) New No.145 situated at Hosakerehalli Village, Veerabhadranagar East, Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of the petitioner, and in favour of other grantees. Subsequently, the possession of the land was confirmed by issuance of Saguvali Chit. Ever since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, the petitioner also carried out certain construction on the said land. On 5-5- 2005, the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 321 (1) of the Act. The petitioner replied to the same. After considering the reply, a final notice was issued under Section 321 (3) of the Act confirming the provisional order dated 5-5-2005. In the final order, the petitioner was directed to remove the alleged unauthorised construction. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, by order dated 31-3-2015, the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. H.V. Devaraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner's property is situated in Hosakerehalli Village, Veerabhadranagar East, Bangalore South Taluk; more specifically, it is situated in survey No. (Old No.87) New No.145. However, the said Village has never formed as part of the B.B.M.P. Therefore, the respondent - B.B.M.P. was unjustified in issuing a notice under Sections 321 (1) and 321 (3) of the Act. In order to buttress his plea, the learned counsel has brought the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to the Commissioner, B.B.M.P., dated 26-2-2003, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has pointed out that due to the pendency of the litigation, survey No.87 situated in Hosakerehalli Village cannot be conveyed to the B.B.M.P. He has also brought endorsement dated 30-6-2006 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department, which clearly indicates that Veerabhadranagara Dakhle area, under which the petitioner's property falls, the question whether the said area should belong to the B.B.M.P. or to the Rajarajeshwari Municipality is under consideration of the Government. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the area in dispute, in fact, was never conveyed to the B.B.M.P.