AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—In this writ petition, Petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.10.2010 in Appeal No. 933 of 2008 which is produced at Annexure-E.
It is the case of the Petitioner that he had obtained sanctioned plan from Respondent No. 2-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and had commenced construction on his property and after completion of the construction of the super structure, notices were issued by the Respondent-authority under Sections 321[1] and 321[2] of the Karnataka. Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act.''] and thereafter orders were passed u/s 321[3] of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said orders, Petitioner filed the appeal in Appeal No. 933 of 2008 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal''] challenging the confirmatory order passed u/s 321(3) of the Act.
During the pendency of the appeal, the Petitioner had filed an application in IA No. V u/s 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking permission to complete construction of the building since the super structure was completed arid the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 5.10.2010. The said order is in challenge in this writ petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
It. is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that while challenge has been made to the order passed by the Respondent-authorities u/s 321[3] of the Act, nevertheless, he sought permission of the Tribunal to complete the construction since according to the Petitioner, the building has been constructed as per the approved plan and under the circumstances, the completion of the construction would not. come in the way of disposal of the appeal.
The said application was objected to stating that there has been deviations in the construction put up by the Petitioner and under the circumstances, a provisional order was made which was followed by a confirmatory order passed u/s 321[3] of the Act, the same is in challenge in the appeal and under the circumstances the Petitioner could not be permitted to complete the construction, in as much as, any confirmation of the order passed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in the appeal before the Tribunal would result in removal of the deviations and the illegal construction and therefore no permission for putting up of the construction could be granted.
Counsel for the Petitioner, however submits that if the Petitioner is permitted to remove the deviations and putting up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, the same would not come in the way of disposal of the appeal and therefore permission ought to have been granted by the Tribunal.
From the material on record, it is clear that as against the confirmatory order passed u/s 321[3] of the Act, the Petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the same since the Respondents-authorities have come to a conclusion that there are deviations in the construction of the building and also the construction put up by the Petitioner was contrary to the sanctioned plan. The Tribunal is seized of the matter, in as much as, the correctness of the said order is under consideration. In the event of the Tribunal coming to the conclusion that the said order is in accordance with law, then in that case, the Petitioner would be directed to take steps to remove the defects and violations in the construction and also to bring it in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In the event of the Petitioner succeeding in the said appeal, he is at liberty to put up construction in terms of the sanctioned plan. However, during the interregnum, when the correctness of the order of the Respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike is yet to be decided by the Tribunal, by an interim order, the Tribunal could not have permitted the Petitioner to complete the construction. The Tribunal is hence justified in dismissing the application. The said order does not call for interference in this writ petition.
Having regard to the fact, that appeal is of the year 2008 and from the copy of the order sheet, it is observed that the Respondents-authorities have not yet submitted the records to the Tribunal as on the date when the application was disposed of, it is necessary to observe that the Respondents-authorities ought to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal by furnishing the records to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In the result, wait petition is rejected, subject to the above observations.