AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After hearing Mr Jayakumar S Patil, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants, and considering the postal shara, we accept that the notice on the respondent No 2 has been duly served.
This is an appeal filed against the interim order dated August 8, 2016, passed by an Hon''ble Single Judge, in Writ Petition No 36368 of 2016.
The writ petitioner, who has been arrayed as seventh respondent in this appeal, filed the said writ petition for implementation of the order dated June 10, 2016, issued under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, and seeking the consequential relief of demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction.
Against the said order directing demolition of the unauthorized construction, an appeal is filed and is pending before the appellate authority at the instance of the appellants in this appeal.
A report was submitted before the Hon''ble Single Judge by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike that the appellants in this appeal have brought the deviation within the condonable limit.
When the matter is pending before the appellate authority, it is not desirable for us to express any opinion regarding the alleged unauthorized construction. But, at the same time, the appellants, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos 7 to 9 in the writ petition, must undertake their constructions strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan.
We, therefore, dispose of this appeal with a direction to the appellants in this writ appeal to carry on their construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. In the event of the seventh respondent-writ petitioner is aggrieved by any part of the construction by the appellants, it shall be open to him to approach the Mahanagara Palike. We express no opinion on the merits of the matter.
However, we feel, justice would be subserved if the appeal pending before the appellate authority is disposed of expeditiously. We, thus, request the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months, peremptorily.
The appeal stand disposed of.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, IA-II of 2016 for direction does not survive for consideration and it is, also, disposed of.
We make no order as to costs.