The court determined that the first respondent cannot insist on prior demolition or joint applications for building approval, allowing petitioners to proceed with a one-meter setback and without car parking requirements.

The petitioners and second to fourth respondents are the owners of certain specific built-up portions in the property that measures 18 x 33 feet and is located within an 'Intensely Developed Area'. The petitioners also assert corresponding undivided share in the sital area. These parties were before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.51795/2019 because of certain intended action by the first respondent alleging that the building in the property is in a dilapidated condition and must be brought down.

When this Court referred them to mediation, they have entered into an agreement, and the writ petition in W.P. No.51795/2019 stands disposed of by this Court's order dated 02.02.2022. It would suffice for the purposes of the present petition to observe that the petitioners have taken upon themselves, with the consent of the second to fourth respondents, to construct the new building incurring costs subject to the detailed terms of the agreement.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition for directions to the first respondent to demolish the building in terms of the Notice dated 18.10.2023 because of a standoff between the petitioners and the second to fourth respondents as a consequence of perceived difficulties in obtaining necessary approvals and license for construction of a building as agreed without jeopardizing their respective rights. The learned counsels for the petitioners and the second to fourth respondents, during the course of hearing on the previous occasions, impressed upon this Court that some of the difficulties would be because of the requirements of setback and car parking in the Ground Floor of the proposed new Building.

3. The concerned Officer from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP], when called upon by this Court, has filed a Status Report stating, amongst others, the following:

[a] A fresh Plan and license can be issued provided all the Kathedars jointly submit the necessary application and if the existing building in the property is demolished.

[b] The parties will have to ensure that setback is as per the Table mentioned in this Report.

[c] The entire ground floor has to be reserved for parking as per the Rules.

4. Further, with the learned counsels taking exception with the Report also stating that the entire Ground Floor must be reserved for car parking and there must be setback as aforesaid, this Court has called upon the learned counsel for the BBMP to place on record the parameters that would be insisted upon for granting approval of land and issuance of license given the dimensions of the property. This Court has also called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Town Planning [West] [ADTP], BBMP to be present to issue necessary clarification because of certain circumstances as recorded by this Court, and the jurisdictional ADTP has later clarified thus in person:

"When queried on whether the requirement for parking area within the subject property is a must according the BBMP Building Bye-laws 2003 because the measures only 594 sq. feet and is within densely developed area, Sri Narayanaswamy submits that, in these circumstances, at the most, the parties may have to provide for a single car parking and a staircase in the ground floor, and but then if the parties are not particular, they may not even earmark any area for car parking."

5. Sri Nitin Ramesh, Sri Mallikarjun Reddy K S, Sri P Usman, Sri R B Sadasivappa, Sri Kittappa K R, the learned counsels for the petitioner and first to fourth respondents respectively, are heard in the light of these circumstances and clarification. The learned counsels submit that their entire effort from the very beginning has been to impress upon the first respondent that there cannot be any insistence on Car Parking given the provisions of Bye-law Rule-16[c] of the BBMP Bye - laws 2003 [Bye-laws] and that the property is located within 'Intensely Developed Area' and the total built up floor space cannot be more than 100 sq. meters. This Court