RAMAKKA Vs. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ appeals are directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th october,2000 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 38414-15 of 1999 and the batch.

(2.) WRIT Appeal Nos. 593-601 of 2001, 674 of 2001, 888 of 2001, 4312 of 2001, and 688 of 2001 are filed by the owners of the properties in question, whereas the remaining writ appeals are filed by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, the Corporation ). The owners of the properties would contend that the action taken by the Government of Karnataka in the purported exercise of power under Section 98 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, the Act)is one without authority of law and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. In the Writ Appeals preferred by the Corporation, the limited attack is that the learned single Judge erred in law in granting personal hearing to the owners of the properties in question in the proceedings initiated by the State Government under Section 98 of the Act.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating these contentions raised by the parties and highlighted by their respective counsel, it is appropriate for us to have a look at the factual matrix of the case. Alleging that the owners of the properties concerned have violated the provisions of the Act and the building bye-laws, particularly Clauses 5. 1 and 6. 1, in constructing the buildings in contravention of the sanctioned plan, the Commissioner of the Corporation initiated proceedings against each of the owners under Section 321 of the Act and passed the provisional orders specifying the portions of the deviations made by each of the owners in their respective buildings. Orders so passed by the commissioner were served on the owners of the properties as required under Sub-section (2) of section 321 of the Act. The Commissioner considered the objections filed by the owners and passed orders confirming the provisional orders under Sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Act. The owners of the properties were directed to remove the unauthorised constructions within the stipulated period.