B.SURYA PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in these intra-Court appeals.

(2.) The petitioners/appellants preferred the writ petitions bearing Nos. 65604-65611/2016 stating grievance against the proposed construction raised by respondent No. 9. It was submitted before the learned single Judge that the construction raised by respondent No. 9 had caused loss to their adjoining properties and, therefore, sanctioned plan of respondent No. 9 should be cancelled and respondent No. 9 should be asked to repair their properties and pay damages to them.

(3.) The learned single Judge has referred to the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, including the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and has indicated that the complaint made by the petitioners/appellants was carrying several factual aspects, which could not be determined in the writ jurisdiction. The learned single Judge has also observed that the question as to whether the damages had actually been caused on account of the construction activity by respondent No. 9 or not was a question of fact, to be determined based on the evidence adduced. The learned single Judge has further observed that the conditions for sanction of the construction plan were complied with by the builder as stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the BBMP. The learned single Judge, ultimately, disposed of the writ petitions, while keeping it open for the petitioners/appellants to take recourse to appropriate regular remedy in the Civil Court while observing, inter alia, as under: