ORAL ORDER
The petitioner claims it is an association of owners of certain apartments and it is constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Owners' Act, 1972. The petitioner is aggrieved by the third respondent's Notice dated 27-08-2024 [Annexure-A]. The third respondent [the Planning Authority] has issued this Notice under Rule 37 of the Karnataka Planning Authority's Rule, 1965 ascertaining that the certain extent in Sy.Nos.30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 161 of Kadatanamale village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk is reserved as a civic amenity site, and that a temporary shed has been constructed in this extent and therefore this temporary shed must be removed within 15 days. The third respondent has addressed this Notice to M/s. Provident Welworth City Residents Welfare and Cultural Association [the Applicant] while
- 4 -
stating that no action has been taken despite repeated notices to remove the temporary shed.
2. The Applicant has filed its application to come on record in the present proceedings, and it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the third respondent has initiated proceedings at its instance. Sri Sunil S. Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Mathai, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Spoorthi V., the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, and Sri Yogesh D. Naik, the learned standing counsel for the second and third respondents, are heard for final disposal of the petition.
3. This Court must observe that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the applicant as to who between them can protect the interest of the apartment owners and therefore they have competing claims to the area that is reserved for
- 5 -
civic amenity. However, this dispute must be resolved in a proper proceeding if there is occasion for the same. Insofar as the petitioner's grievance with the third respondent's notice, this Court is of the considered view that it must also be extended an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action.
4. In this context this Court must observe that it is undisputed that the area that is identified as a civic amenity site in the impugned notice must be dealt by the third respondent under the applicable Rules/Regulations, and that the nature of this property cannot be altered howsoever. If the petitioner's contention is that they have undertaken some construction, they may place the material in that regard with the third respondent in response to the notice and the third respondent must consider the same with the sole purpose of protecting the
- 6 -
property as civic amenity without room for precipitation howsoever. Hence, the following
ORDER
The petition and the application stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file response to the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27.08.2024, within fifteen [15] days from today, calling upon the third respondent to consider the same as observed by this Court.
It is needless to observe that neither the petitioner nor the applicant can change the nature of the structure as it exists today until due consideration by the third respondent.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SA
ct:sr