SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Kar) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.
SRI KAMLESH KUMAR – PETITIONER
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.29795/2014 (LB-BBMP)
Decided on: 19TH NOVEMBER 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
SRI P.D.SURANA, ADV.
SRI V.Y.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R-4 AND R-5

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226 & 227: [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Illegal construction in Bengaluru City - Total failure on the part of the officers manning Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in taking remedial measures - Builders violating with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge in deviations made to the prejudice of the planned development of the Bengaluru City - Unauthorised construction put up by Respondents 4 and 5 in violation of the sanctioned building plan which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner - Held, Commissioner of BBMP was directed to demolish the building.

Order

The neighbour of respondents 4 and 5 has preferred this petition for the following reliefs:

(a) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the dismantling of the illegal construction as per the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act made by respondents 4 and 5 on property bearing No.8/1, 2nd cross, Swasti Road (Lakshmi Road Cross), Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore-560 027. Further appoint a Court Commissioner to carry out the said exercise on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, in the interest of justice.

(b) Prohibit respondents 4 and 5 from occupying the building constructed on property bearing No.8/1, 2nd Cross, Swasti Road (Lakshmi Road Cross), Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore-560 027 till the removal of the illegal construction.

2. The immovable property bearing No.8/1, II Cross, Lakshmi Road Cross, Bangalore, belonging to respondents 4 and 5, jointly, is said to be located adjacent to property No.8/2 belonging to the petitioner. It is alleged that respondents 4 and 5 commenced construction of the building on property No.8/1 in violation of the Building Byelaws of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short ‘BBMP’ and the Building Plan sanction for construction of a residential building, following which petitioner made a representation to respondents 1 to 3-BBMP which when not considered led to filing W.P.No.4972/2012, whence this Court directed the BBMP to initiate action to remove the illegal construction by order dated 28.11.2012. According to the petitioner, construction of the building by respondents 4 and 5 was commenced during June, 2012 and by the time writ petition was filed, ground, first and second floors were erected, and in the process of laying the roof for the third floor. It is further stated that the Asst. Executive Engineer issued notice under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short ‘KMC Act’, requiring respondents 4 and 5 to remove the illegal construction followed by a final order of demolition which was impugned in Appeal No.1344/2012 filed by respondents 4 and 5 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Despite the said orders under the KMC Act, respondents 4 and 5, it is alleged, with impunity, continued the illegal construction of the third and part of the fourth floor though without sanction. Therefore, petitioner filed W.P.No.3876/2013 for appropriate directions to BBMP to remove the illegal construction, more particularly over the third and fourth floors which was disposed of by order dated 6.11.2013 Annexure-B, with a direction that Appeal No.1344/2012 pending on the file of the KAT be disposed of within two months therefrom, while the BBMP was directed to take action in accordance with law with regard to construction put up by respondents 4 and 5, not subject matter of Appeal No.1344/2012. It is further stated that the order of demolition, subject matter of Appeal No.1344/2012 did not relate to illegal construction put up by respondents 4 and 5 on the third and fourth floors of the property. In addition, it is stated that the KAT, by Order dated 4.3.2014 allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of confirmation and remitted the proceeding for fresh consideration over violation of the sanctioned plan. Petitioner asserts to have addressed a letter dated 28.4.2014 to the BBMP requesting them to take action to remove the illegal construction.

3. According to the petitioner, the building plan sanction as per LP No.OL/SP/1309/11-12 permitted the 4th and 5th respondents to put up construction of stilt, ground, first and second floors, on site bearing No.8/1, II cross, Lakshmi Road Cross, Shanthinagar. The plan so sanctioned though required 4th and 5th respondents to leave set back areas in the stilt floor measuring 4.10 mtrs on the front, 2.70 mtrs on hind portion; 1.0 mtr on the left and 2.50 on the right side of the said property, nevertheless, put up construction of the building leaving a front set back of 1-1½ ft; on hind side- 1½ to 2 ft.; on the left side 1-1½ ft and; on th







































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top