LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-43

SYED ARIFULLA HABIB Vs. COMMISSIONER BBMP

Decided On August 14, 2009
SYED ARIFULLA HABIB Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER, BBMP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, having purchased the schedule immoveable property from his vendor in title by name N. Geetha, who, on securing a sanction of building plan and licence to erect a residential building, nevertheless, constructed a building for commercial use, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus, to restrain the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short BBMP, from demolishing the said property.

(2.) The construction of the commercial building on a residential plot of land without change of land use, from residential to commercial, under The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short KTCP Act, and contrary to sanction of building plan and licence ex facie, was illegal, let alone the use of the said building for commercial activity. The complaint of the petitioner's neighbour over the illegalities, when not responded, led to filing W.P. 19029-30/01, whence, a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 19.6.01, Annexure-B, disposed off the petition, recording the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent- vendor in title of the petitioner, that the petition is rendered infructuous since a confirmation order under sub-Section (3) of Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short the Act, to remove the unauthorised structure, was served on the said respondent, and, the submission of the Executive Engineer (Elec.) Additional South Division arraigned as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, that an action plan was initiated to demolish the unauthorized structure erected contrary to the building plan.

(3.) The petitioner therein aggrieved by the order preferred WA 4321-22/01 whence the Division Bench by order dated 13th September, 2001 Annexure-C, recorded the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Corporation as well as the 5th respondent that in view of the confirmation order under sub-Section, (3) of Section 321 of the Act the BBMP had a duty to demolish ther offensive portion of the building and directed thus: