Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is similar,

the same are taken up together and disposed of by common

order.

The

petitioner

submitted

an

application

with

respondent – BBMP for sanctioning of plan for construction of

residential apartment in the property bearing No.2, 1^st Cross,

MRCR Layout, Govindaraj Nagar, Bengaluru. The said plan was

sanctioned on 17.7.2008 and the commencement certificate was

issued on 18.6.2009. At the time of applying for grant of license

and sanctioned plan, the petitioner had deposited a sum of

Rs.15,60,000/- with respondent – BBMP which was refundable

within three years or within thirty days from the date of

production of completion certificate, whichever was earlier. The

condition specified for refund of security deposit was that the

building should be constructed without any deviation.

4

In pursuance of the sanctioned plan and the

commencement certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the

petitioner constructed the residential apartment building on the

property in question. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an

application with the respondent – BBMP to issue occupancy

certificate. The respondent – BBMP upon inspection of the

building, found that there was some deviation in the construction

which was within the permissible limit.

Since the deviation in the construction of the building

was within the permissible limit, the said deviation was

regularized in terms of the Building Bye laws 2003 by imposing

a penalty of Rs.9,14,000/-. The respondent – BBMP having

regularized the deviation which was within the permissible limits,

after imposing penalty issued an occupancy certificate subject to

certain terms and conditions and one of the terms specified was

that the security deposit is forfeited since the construction put up

by the petitioner was in deviation of the sanctioned building plan.

4.

The petitioner through its counsel issued a notice

dated 26.4.2013 calling upon the respondent – BBMP to refund

the security deposit of Rs.15,60,000/- together with interest,

5

failing which, appropriate action would be taken. In turn, the

respondent – BBMP issued a communication dated 2.7.2013

stating that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of security

deposit since the construction put up by the petitioner was in

deviation from the sanctioned plan. Taking exception to the

same, this petition is filed.

WP No.1066/2014:

5.

On an application submitted by the petitioner for

sanctioning of building plan for construction of residential

apartment complex in land bearing Sy.No.19/2 of Kudalahalli

village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Benglauru, the respondent –

BBMP issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of

Rs.21,48,441/-

which

included

security

deposit

Rs.6,12,700/-. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner

deposited a sum of Rs.6,12,700/- and the petitioner was granted

the sanctioned building plan and also the commencement

certificate.

6.

After completing the construction of the building, the

petitioner submitted an application with the respondent – BBMP

so as to issue occupancy certificate. The respondent – BBMP

upon inspection of the building found that there was deviation of

6

4.80% in the net built up area when compared to the sanctioned

plan. The deviation made by the petitioner which was within the

permissible limits was regularized upon payment of penalty of

Rs.9,46,800/-. Thereafter, the respondent – BBMP issued the

occupancy certificate but forfeited the security deposit since the

construction put up was in deviation from the sanctioned plan.

7.

The petitioner represented the respondent – BBMP so

as to refund the security deposit. The petitioner’s grievance is

that the forfeiture of security deposit is without authority of law.

Hence, this petition.

8.

Learned

counsel

appearing

for

petitioners

submits that the construction put up by the petitioners was not

in deviation of the sanctioned plan since the respondent – BBMP

has regularized the deviation whi