The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos.I and III in Appeal No.840/2017 to vacate the interim order of stay as per Annexure-A .
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 4 acres and 1 guntas was convered for non-agricultural purpose in the year 1999 and on 24.5.2017, the 2nd respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer issued provisional order under Section 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Corporation Act. The petitioner filed his objections and thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the confirmation order on 13.6.2017 under the provisions of Section 321(3) of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal i.e., Appeal No.840/2017 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) on 20th July, 2017. On 1.8.2017, the KAT granted an interim order of stay of the confirmation order dated 13.6.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an impleading application in the said appeal which came to be allowed on 13.10.2017 and on the application filed by the respondents, the impugned order came to be passed by the KAT on 22.11.2017 vacating the interim order. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. This Court by the order dated 18.6.2018 directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to precipitate the matter till the next date of hearing. Subsequently, the interim order granted earlier was also extended till today. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed an application I.A.2/2018 for vacating the interim stay and that is how the matter is posted today.
4. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
5. Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the confirmation order13.6.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Act was stayed by the KAT at the inception on 1.8.2017. Subsequently, on the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, now the interim order of stay is vacated by the KAT. Therefore, he contended that if the interim stay is vacated that too when respondent Nos.3 and 4 have got themselves impleaded by the order dated 13.10.2017 , the very purpose of filing the appeal before the KAT will be frustrated and therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by the KAT by allowing the present writ petition for the relief as prayed for.
6. Per contra, Smt. Niveditha Prakash, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the KAT contending that the petitioner by suppressing the material facts of the case has obtained an exparte interim stay before the KAT and the KAT after considering the impleading application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the entire material on record, vacated the interim order on 22nd November 2017. Therefore, she sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Sri Ramesh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that if the order of the KAT vacating the interim stay is not stayed or set aside, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no other option except to accept the order of confirmation and to start the operation to demolish the building. The said submission is placed on record.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, according to respondent Nos.3 and 4, the construction is in violation of the sanctioned plan and accordingly, the 2nd respondent has issued the provisional order as well as confirmation order. The confirmation order is the subject matter of appeal before the KAT in Appeal No.840/2017. If the impugned order passed by the KAT vacating the interim order is not quashed, respondent Nos.1 and 2 necessarily have to implement the confirmation order and have to take action to demolish the building. If it is so, the very purpose of filing the appeal by the petitioner before the KAT will be frustrated. Therefore, it is suffice to direct the KAT to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
9. It is well settled that the parties, who come to the Court with great expectation, the Court should not proceed with the matter on technicalities thereby depriving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before taking final decision on merits.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the KAT in Appeal No.840/2017 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the KAT to dispose of the appeal on merits in the interest of justice at the earliest after hearing both the parties. Till such consideration, the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13.6.2017 is stayed. Sd/- Judge Nsu/-
Comments