Back
2024 Supreme(Kar) 704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
Kumar Selvam V. and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Commissioner Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2024
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.M. Shivayogi Swamy
For the Respondent: Pawan Kumar
Stopping construction requires initiation of proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, not merely a notice under Section 313.
Headnote:(A) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 - Section 313 and Section 248 - Notice issued to property owners to produce documents and stop construction - Court held that stopping construction requires proceedings under Chapter-XVI, specifically Section 248 - Petitioners purchased property with ongoing construction and contested the notice. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Construction without sanction - The court emphasized that action must be initiated under the appropriate provisions of the BBMP Act for any construction without necessary approvals. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of property in Bengaluru, challenged a notice from the Assistant Executive Engineer requiring them to stop construction and produce documents, alleging construction was without necessary setbacks.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the notice to stop construction but allowed the petitioners to submit required documents, directing the second respondent to take necessary action under Section 248 of the BBMP Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the notice to stop construction was valid and the proper procedure for addressing construction without necessary approvals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that stopping construction requires initiation of proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, and the petitioners must be allowed to furnish the requested documents.
Result: Petition allowed-in-part.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No. 54D, 6th Main Road, Anjaneya Temple Street, Malleshpalya, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [the subject property] and they are aggrieved by the notice issued by the second respondent under Section 313 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'BBMP Act'] on 08.11.2023 [Annexure-A].
2. The second respondent - the jurisdictional Assistant Executive Engineer - has issued this notice calling upon the petitioners to produce a copy of the sanction plan, commencement certificate and tax paid receipts for the years prior to the impugned notice, and in addition, the second respondent has directed the petitioners to stop the construction forthwith. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order to stop the construction. The petitioners contend that they have purchased the subject property under the sale deed dated 28.07.2023, and at the time of this purchase, the vendors had completed the construction of the ground floor and they have commenced construction of the first floor and the second respondent has issued notice alleging that the construction is without the necessary setback.
3. This Court must observe that if there is any construction either without the plan/license or in contravention thereof, the concerned must commence action under Chapter-XVI of the BBMP Act. It could be argued that Section 313 of the BBMP Act could be invoked for summoning the documents such as the sanction plan, but the direction to stop construction must be part of the proceedings under Chapter-XVI, more specifically Section 248 of the BBMP Act. There cannot be delay in initiating such proceedings, because the second respondent indubitably can confirm from the office of the concerned Assistant Director of Town Planning whether the plan has been sanctioned or not.
4. Therefore, the petition must be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to furnish the documents as sought for in the impugned notice within a period of fifteen [15] days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and directing the second respondent, whether the petitioners furnish such documents or not, to take appropriate action as contemplated under Chapter-XVI of the BBMP Act. However, there cannot be a direction for stopping the construction unless proceedings are begun under Section 248 of the BBMP Act. Hence the following:
ORDER:
[a] The petition is allowed-in-part, and the impugned notice dated 08.11.2023 [Annexure-A] issued by the second respondent is quashed insofar as there is a direction to stop construction reserving liberty to the petitioners to furnish a copy of the sanction plan and other records sought for in the impugned notice.
[b] The second respondent is directed, notwithstanding the petitioners' failure to produce such documents, to take action as would be necessary under the provisions of Section 248 of the BBMP Act.
