AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri
The petitioner has called into question the order, dated 10.4.2012 (Annexure-H) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (''KAT'' for short) dismissing the petitioner''s appeal. In the said appeal the petitioner had challenged the order, dated 4.6.2010. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal in view of the passing of the subsequent order on 18.12.2010 by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (''the said Act'' for short). Sri N.S. Satish Chandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, dated 18.12.2010 was not communicated to the petitioner. He submits that: the passing of such an order was not even mentioned by the respondents in the proceedings before the KAT. The KAT noticed it while perusing the L.C.R.s and dismissed the appeal.
On this Court asking Sri S.V. Angadi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as to whether the order, dated 18.12.2310 came to be served on the petitioner, he submits that the order, dated 18.12.2010 was pasted on the suit schedule property.
Sri M.I. Arun, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the proceedings u/s 321 of the said Act were initiated on the complaint of the respondent No. 4. He submits that the petitioner has been indulging in illegal, unauthorised activities. The building situated in the residential zone is being used for the commercial purpose. He submits that the petitioner has been creating lot of nuisance to the respondent No. 4 and other residents in the locality. He further submits that the construction is not in keeping with the sanctioned plan.
The submission that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have pasted the order, dated 18.12.2010 does not commend itself to me. The respondent authorities ought to have sent the order under RPAD. Only on the registered postal envelope coming back unserved, it was open to them to affix the order on the suit schedule property. It should not have been done in the first instance itself, mere so when the petitioner''s valuable rights in the immovable property are involved.
This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to issue the certified copy of the order, dated 18.12.2010 to the petitioner forthwith. Further, to safeguard the interests of the petitioner during the interregnum, I also deem it necessary to direct the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to maintain the status quo for a period of six weeks. By granting the order of status quo, a direction is issued to the petitioner not to add to the existing structure. However, it is made clear that the granting of the status quo shall not come in the way of the petitioner bringing the building in conformity with the sanctioned plan. Further, the petitioner shall ensure that her activities in the building in question shall not cause any nuisance to anybody. It is open to all the parties to seek further orders from the KAT, if the appeal is filed. If no appeal is filed or no interim orders are granted by the KAT within six weeks, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have to give effect to their order, dated 18.12.2010. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.