Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11265
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
NAGABHUSHAN REDDY N – Appellant
Versus
THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE – Respondent
WP 23631/2023
SRI: BHARATH .K., SMT. SUMANA BALIGA.M., SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., SMT. MAMATHA M.R.
Residential plots cannot be used for commercial parking, as it violates Building Bye-Laws and causes nuisance to residents.
Headnote:(A) Building Bye-Laws - Residential Property - Parking Policy 2.0 - The petitioners sought relief against the use of a residential plot for commercial parking, causing noise and traffic issues. The court found no provision allowing such use and directed action against the respondent for nuisance. (Paras 2, 10.1, 10.4, 12.1)
(B) Mandamus - The court issued a writ of Mandamus directing the municipal authority to act on the representation made by the petitioners regarding the illegal use of the plot. (Paras 12.1, 13.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, residents of a Bangalore locality, complained about a residential plot being used for commercial parking, causing disturbances and inconvenience. Despite representations, no action was taken by authorities. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that using a residential plot for commercial parking violates Building Bye-Laws and directed the authorities to take necessary action against such use. (Paras 10.4, 11.4)
Issues: The main issues included whether a residential plot can be used commercially for parking and the responsibilities of municipal authorities regarding illegal activities. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that commercial parking on residential property is not permitted under law, and municipal authorities must act against such violations to prevent inconvenience to residents. (Paras 10.4, 11.4)
Result: The Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing necessary action against the respondent.
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
- I.
- Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondents to consider the representation dated 27.07.2023 filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-A and take necessary action.
- II.
- Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioners are residents of 19th ‘A’ Cross, 17th Main, HSR Layout, Bangalore for the last more than 10 years. There are more than 20 plots in 19th ‘A’ Main Road occupied by the respective owners. Four of the properties are vacant. One such property being Plot No.7 belongs to respondent No.4 who had let out the said property for the purpose of parking for two wheelers and four wheelers. Due to the said property was being used for parking, there is noise and air pollution, as also increased vehicle traffic on a residential road, parking problems on the said road, the persons who park doing so at all times of the day and night and taking out their vehicles at all times of a day and night, is causing immense inconvenience. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The submission of Sri.Bharat Keshavamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that there is no particular provision under the Building Bye-Law and/or Zonal Regulations to use a residential plot for parking purposes on a commercial basis by letting out the property to a third party. The residential property now being used for commercial purposes of parking of two wheelers and four wheelers. These vehicles come to the said property at all times during day and night resulting in heavy traffic in the said road causing inconvenience to the residents of the said road including the petitioners. Once the cars are parked, the drivers stay back in the property talking amongst each other, smoking etc., which spoils peace in the neighborhood. The nuisance which has been caused due to such parking is causing tremendous inconvenience to the petitioners and their family and all the persons residing on the said road.
4. Though a representation had been submitted to respondents No.1 to 3 on 27.07.2023, no action has been taken. Respondent No.4 has not paid attention to the complaints as also the inconvenience pointed out. Respondent No.4 does not reside in the said area and having let out the property is merrily receiving rentals at the inconvenience of the petitioners.
5. Smt.Mamatha M.R., learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that there is a malafide intention of the petitioner in filing the present petition. The previous owner not having sold the property to the petitioners and respondent No.4 having purchased the property, the petitioners are seeking to cause trouble to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is only using the property for parking purpose on a temporary basis.
Respondent No.4
has been targeted by the petitioners. There are many other sites which are empty of which the owners have let out the property for usage for parking purposes. The petition therefore being filed only to harass respondent No.4 is required to be dismissed by imposing exemplary cost.
6. Smt.Sumana Baliga, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that there is no particular permission which has been granted by respondents No.1 and 2 for usage of the residential plot for the purpose of parking. The Directorate of Urban Land Transport has formulated Parking Policy 2.0 in December 2020 to cater to the parking requirements of the city of Bangalore. In pursuance of the said policy, the Area Parking Plan is under preparation so also the parking charges framework is under finalization. A concept of off-street parking is also part of the said parking policy for high usage area such as commercial areas. In that background, she submits that no permission having been granted to respondent No.4 for usage of the residential property for
