Karnataka High Court
Sri K Raghava Reddy vs The Commissioner on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36682-DB
WA No. 1245 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1245 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K.RAGHAVA REDDY,
S/O VENKAT SUBBA REDDY
AGED 85 YEARS
R/AT ROYAL RESIDENCY
G-1, BLOCK 1, No.8
BRUNTON ROAD
OPP. M G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 025
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SANTOSH B Y, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE COMMISSIONER
by AMBIKA H B
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF N R SQUARE
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 002
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
WARD No.43, SAMPIGE ROAD
OPP. MANTRI MALL
BENGALURU - 560 011
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
WARD No.43, SAMPIGE ROAD
OPP MANTRI MALL
BENGALURU - 560 011
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36682-DB
WA No. 1245 of 2023
4. SRI B GIRISH
S/O LT B V GOVINDAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
RA/T No.1 TARACE FLOOR
1ST E MAIN, 8TH CROSS
J S NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 096
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 21.08.2023 PASSED IN WP No.26180/2022 (LB-
BMP).
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the order dated
21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.26180/2022. Admittedly, the said order is an interim order.
2. Respondent No.4 herein filed a writ petition seeking a
direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the
representations/legal notices all dated 10.11.2022 and to prevent
unauthorised construction in Survey No.126 for an extent of 6
guntas in Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk, now known as Mahalaxmi Layout. The order dated
21.08.2023 reads thus:
"1. Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel accepts
notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
NC: 2023:KHC:36682-DB
WA No. 1245 of 2023
2. Issue notice to respondent No.4 returnable by
20.09.2023.
3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to cause
an inspection of property bearing Sy. No.126 of
Jarakabandekal Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk and ascertain if there is any construction
going on, if such construction is going on, whether
there is any plan sanction granted if a plan sanction
has been granted, whether the construction is in
accordance with the plan sanction if not, what is the
deviation in respect of setbacks as also the
construction, and file a report indicating the deviation
in both area and percentage.
4. The inspection to be carried out commencing
from 10.30 a.m on 07.09.2023. Report to be
submitted by 14.09.2023.
5. Re-list on 20.09.2023."
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the Authorities have visited the property in question on
07.09.2023 and carried out the inspection. His only grievance is
that there is no public interest involved in the writ petition and in
spite of the same, the learned Single Judge has passed the interim
order as if it was a public interest litigation. He also submits that if
there was any grievance regarding non-compliance of relevant
Regulations and Rules while erecting unauthorised construction,
NC: 2023:KHC:36682-DB
WA No. 1245 of 2023
respondent No.4 could have taken necessary recourse to law and
not by way of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
5. In the present appeal, we are dealing with only the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the main writ
petition is still pending. By the said interim order, only a direction
was issued to the concerned Authorities to cause inspection of the
property in question. There is nothing in the Rules, Regulations or
law which permits the occupant of a property to obstruct inspection
by a Competent Authority. At the most, it can only be expected of
the Competent Authority to ensure that during the course of
inspection, no inconvenience or annoyance is caused to the
occupant. The order passed by the learned Single Judge clearly
indicates that the concerned Authorities were only directed to carry
out inspection on particular aspects and this exercise would not
cause any annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience to the
appellant.
6. Apart from this, if the appellant has followed the relevant
Rules and Regulations, he should not be shy to show necessary
documents during the course of inspection and request the
NC: 2023:KHC:36682-DB
WA No. 1245 of 2023
authorities to make a reference to the same which would have also
helped the Authorities to carry out the inspection in a transparent
manner.
In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that
the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
Needless to state that all contentions of the parties are kept
open to be urged in the writ petition itself.
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending interlocutory
applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AHB
