ARUL NAMBI SIVASANKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE B.B.M.P HUSTON CIRCLE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 03.12.2011 impugned at Annexure -K to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for direction to consider the plan proposed by the petitioner as per Annexure -L for completion of construction in accordance with the prevailing Bye -law of the respondents and the Revised Master Plan -2015 and Zonal Regulations. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 615, 1st Stage, II Main, Indiranagar, Bangalore -560 038. The petitioner has stated with regard to his ownership rights. The present litigation pertains only to the construction that is being put up by the petitioner in the said property Though reference is made to the earlier proceedings before this Court and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal relating to the action initiated under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, keeping in view the nature of the litigation at this stage, the said aspects of the matter need not be gone into.

(2.) THE petitioner who was putting up construction in accordance with the sanction plan is stated to have deviated from the said construction and it is in that regard, certain actions were initiated, more particularly on the compliant made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are owners of the neighbouring property. The impugned order at Annexure -K came to be passed in that circumstance. However, since there are certain amendments made to the Building Bye -Laws and since the petitioner is seeking to bring the building in conformity with the said Bye -laws has submitted a fresh plan for consideration. Only that aspect requires consideration.

(3.) IN a normal circumstance, when such request is made, the appropriate direction to be issued to the statutory respondents would be to consider the plan in accordance with the prevailing guidelines. However, keeping in view the nature of the objections which have been put forth by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also keeping in view certain developments which had taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, the consideration to be made by the statutory respondents would have to be qualified accordingly.