Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 391 (KAR)

R. Pushpalatha v. Mysore City Corporation

2014-03-24

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The petitioner, owner of site No.1234, situated at I Stage, Hebbal Layout, Deveraja Mohalla, Mysore, having made an application to the Mysore City Corporation, for approval of plan and issuance of building licence for construction of ground floor building, sanction was accorded on 28.05.2013. Construction having been made and respondent No.2 having submitted an inspection report dated 28.02.2014, a notice dated 01.03.2014 vide Annexure-A alleging violation in the matter of construction was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was served with another notice dated 10.03.2014 vide Annexure-B, to remove within 3 days, the unauthorized construction. Assailing the said notices, as at Annexures – A and B, this writ petition was filed on 14.03.2014. 2. Sri. O. Shivarama Bhat, learned advocate, contended that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, since a reply vide Annexure-F, to the notice vide Annexure-A was submitted on 10.03.2014. Learned counsel submitted that without considering the application submitted for issue of modified plan, the respondents having threatened the petitioner of the demolition of the building, in view of the extreme urgency and the grave threat, the writ petition was filed for the relief. 3. The original plan and licence was produced along with a memo on 18.03.2014 and the modified plan submitted and the acknowledgment was produced on 21.03.2014. While hearing of the case, Sri. O. Shivarama Bhat, was directed to find out the status of the application filed seeking issue of the modified plan. Learned advocate having ascertained the position, submitted that the request made for issuance of modified plan has been rejected on 11.11.2013. He submitted that the petitioner was not notified of the said rejection and that she came to know it only today i.e., by accessing the website of the respondents. 4. Sri. O. Shivarama Bhat, conceded that, an appeal lies under S.444 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, as against the said order of rejection. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would avail the said statutory remedy. 5. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner for issue of modified plan has been rejected and there being a need for the petitioner to question the said order, there cannot be any challenge to the notices, produced as Annexures - A and B in this writ petition. 5. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner for issue of modified plan has been rejected and there being a need for the petitioner to question the said order, there cannot be any challenge to the notices, produced as Annexures - A and B in this writ petition. Keeping in view the facts, noticed supra, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned action, this writ petition is disposed of by leaving open all the contentions and by reserving liberty to the petitioner to question the rejection order dated 11.11.2013, by way of an appeal, which is both alternative and efficacious remedy. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority will condone the same, provided the petitioner files the appeal on or before 02.04.2014, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. Till the date of filing of the appeal, the respondents are directed not to demolish the unauthorized portion of the building constructed by the petitioner i.e., the upper floors constructed on the ground floor. The petitioner is directed to maintain the status quo and not to make ANY kind of further construction and also not to make use of the upper floors of the building for any purpose. The appeal, if filed, be heard and decided expeditiously and within a period of three months. If an application is filed seeking interim stay, the same shall be considered on its merit, by the Appellate Authority. The Registry is directed to return, forthwith to Sri.O. Shivarama Bhat, all the original documents filed in this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.