Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 483 (KAR)

Ameer Baig v. State of Karnataka

2010-04-05

B.S.PATIL

body2010
ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus against respondents 1 to 4 to exercise powers ves-ted under Section 321(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, the Act). He has also sought for direction to the respondents to exercise their powers and restrain the 6th respondent from seeking any protection or regularisation of the construction put up by her under any scheme and several other incidental reliefs are also sought. 2. The matter is today listed on the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the 5th respondent-Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, to instruct the jurisdictional police to investigate into the matter and institute criminal action against the 6th respondent and her family members for various offences committed by them subsequent to the filing of the writ petition apart from seeking a direction against respondents 1 to 4 from regularising illegal construction put up by the 6th respondent. 3. The entire grievance of the petitioner is based on the allegations made against the 6th respondent that the 6th respondent, who is the neighbour of the petitioner is having her property to the western side of the petitione’s property and she has put up construction illegally by committing several deviations and in violation of the sanctioned plan. The petitioner contended that the illegal acts of the 6th respondent resulted in serious damage to the property of the petitioner. Though representations were made in this regard bringing the alleged illegal acts of the 6th respondent to the notice of respondents 1 to 4, no action was taken by them. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforementioned relief. 4. Sri K.N. Putte Gowda, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, submits that the 3rd respondent-Corporation has initiated action against the 6th respondent and an order was passed under Section 321(3) of the Act. Against the said order the 6th respondent has preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 181 of 2010 and an interim order was granted on 24-3-2010. Therefore, he contends that the relief sought against the 3rd respondent does not survive for consideration insofar as the complaint given to the police and the action, which is directed to be taken against the 6th respondent for the alleged criminal acts. 5. Therefore, he contends that the relief sought against the 3rd respondent does not survive for consideration insofar as the complaint given to the police and the action, which is directed to be taken against the 6th respondent for the alleged criminal acts. 5. Sri N.B. Vishwanath, learned Government Advocate submits that the complaint is registered and FIR is filed in FIR No. 132 before Pulkeshi Nagar Police Station and action in accordance with law will be taken. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the 6th respondent has preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal without impleading the petitioner herein. 6. If that is so, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to implead himself before the Tribunal by taking such necessary steps as are permissible in law. 7. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, relief of issuing any further direction against the Corporation does not survive for consideration as the Corporation has already passed the order under Section 321(3) of the Act. Likewise as the police have already registered the complaint filed by the petitioner and action is initiated, it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Competent Authority and no further direction can be issued in this matter. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 6th respondent is proceeding with illegal construction in the very same premises. If that is so, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or pursue the matter before the Competent Authorities. Reserving such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of. 9. Order accordingly.