Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.
B.G. Veerabhadrappa S/o Late Shri B.V. Gopal Setty - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Commissioner Bhruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18208 of 2024
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay R.A.
For the Respondents: Mallikarjuna Reddy K.S., Panduranga Swamy L.M.
Building setback calculations must strictly adhere to relevant Bye-Laws and are to be applied to each specific site, affirming jurisdictional authority of municipal bodies over property compliance issues.
Headnote:(A) Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 - Section 248(1), (3) - Order under appeal challenging BBMP's decision for setback calculations based on Bye-Law 9.2. Petitioner's application for sanction plan on Site No.14/1 followed action taken by BBMP after a complaint. Writ petition addresses issues of notice, jurisdiction, and calculation of setbacks. The Chief Commissioner's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the setback is assessed only for Site No.14/1 due to its trifurcation. (Paras 1, 4, 14)
(B) Jurisdiction of BBMP - The appellate authority correctly relied on prior interim orders validating its jurisdiction over the matter. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the orders confirming setback calculations and jurisdiction after prior appeals led to remanding for fresh consideration, alongside a complaint that initiated BBMP's action. The impugned order determined that the setback must be calculated based solely on the trifurcated site, not the entire site. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The spot inspection report corroborated the BBMP’s setback calculations for Site No.14/1, concluding no grounds for interference. The order under Section 248(3) must align with deviations noted in the inspection report. (Paras 10, 14)
Issues: The main issues pertained to the legality of notice served, jurisdiction regarding BBMP's decisions, and proper calculations for building setbacks in compliance with Bye-Laws. (Paras 4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the importance of adhering strictly to building regulations as outlined in the Bye-Laws and reinforced the finding that setbacks must be calculated for the specific site under consideration. The court affirmed the Chief Commissioner’s decision as justified. (Paras 14, 19)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to bbmp orders regarding property setbacks. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against setback calculations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on notice and jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and setbacks. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final decision and directions regarding compliance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER :
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner in Appeal No.160/2023 at Annexure-K confirming the orders passed under Section 248 (1) and (3) of the BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ACT , 2020 (for short 'the Act') at Annexures-G and H.
2. Petitioner is the owner of the property and he is stated to have applied for sanction plan for Site No.14/1 and it is submitted that complaint was filed by the 5th respondent pursuant to which respondent - BBMP has taken action. The order under Section 248 (3) of the BBMP Act was challenged at an earlier instance in Appeal No.9/2023 and the said order came to be set aside remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
3. Once again the proceedings under Section 248 of the Act were initiated and finally, the impugned order under Section 248 (3) came to be passed on 31.08.2023 which again has been challenged before the Chief Commissioner, who has rejected the appeal by order dated 01.06.2024. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the order under Section 248 (3) of the Act requires to be set aside on various grounds including that there was no proper notice as well as on the ground that the setback as determined by the respondent - Authority is not in accordance with Note 9 to Bye-Law 9.2 of the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, 2003.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Bye-Law 9.2 of the BBMP Bye-Laws, calculation of set back ought to have been as regards the entirety of Site No.14 and not the trifurcated portion of 14/1 which has been resorted to by the respondent - BBMP and accordingly, it is submitted that the order under Section 248 (3) of the Act has to be set aside on such ground.
6. It is to be noticed that such ground has been adverted to in the order of the Chief Commissioner who in the order at Annexure-K in Para No.3 has rejected such contention including the contention regarding the jurisdiction as regards Section 74 of the Act in Para No.8. The Chief Commissioner while rejecting the contention regarding the jurisdiction has noticed the detailed interim order passed in W.A.No.1176/2023.
7. Insofar as the contention regarding the absence of notice, finding is recorded at Para No.9 that notices were issued by RPAD. No ground is made out to hold that notice is not served.
8. Insofar as the contention regarding Bye-law No.9.2, the said aspect has specifically referred to at Para No.10 of the order specifically referring to petitioner's application for plan relating to site measuring 128.32 Sq. Mtrs. The said order has been challenged before this Court.
9. During the pendency of this proceedings, this Court had directed for a spot inspection and to file a report. On the basis of such order passed on 23.11.2024, spot inspection was conducted and the respondent - BBMP has placed before the Court the inspection report by way of memo dated 15.01.2025. Document No.1 along with the memo is the spot inspection report which provides detailed measurements regarding deviation.
10. It is not in dispute that the said Mahazar prepared by the respondent - BBMP is in the presence of both sides. For all practical purposes, taking note of the mahazar prepared in the presence of parties pursuant to the order of this Court during the pendency of proceedings, the order under Section 248 (3) of the Act passed must be read in terms of the deviations mentioned in the Mahazar. Accordingly, the details of deviations in the Mahazar would substitute the deviations in the order under Section 248 (3) of the Act.
11. Le
