Anjanappa v. Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
2023-12-01
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
body2023
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "(a) To issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (b) quash the Annexure-A proceedings/order dtd. 24/4/2009, the 2nd respondent passed in [XXX XXX XXX].N.16/09-10 under Sec. 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and consequently quash Annexure-A1, order dtd. 26/9/2017 passed in Appeal No.61 of 2013 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. (c) Award court costs and such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice." 2. The building in question is one which was constructed prior to 2013. Even if there are any violations, the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the Akrama-Sakrama scheme, depending on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition was adjourned sine dine. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners and respondent to move the matter after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. Needless to say until then, the Corporation is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.