Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18724
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI. A. SREEKANTAPPA – Appellant
Versus
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. UDITA RAMESH
For the Respondents: SRI. PAWAN KUMAR
Statutory provision allows construction regularization under BBMP Act, 2020, emphasizing leniency for applications submitted in good faith.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Section 321 - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 - Section 240(8) - Petitioner constructs a residential house without sanctioned plan - Respondents issued demolition orders citing illegal construction - Court finds that petitioner submitted an application for plan sanction, albeit misaddressed - The case falls within the statutory remedy for regularization under the BBMP Act, 2020, permitting the owner to apply for plan sanction upon payment of a penalty. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 14)
(B) Construction without sanction - Authorities expected to act leniently in bona fide cases where application was submitted - The principle of proportionality prevents disproportionate hardship to owners who acted in good faith without a sanctioned plan. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an owner aggrieved by demolition orders issued under KMC Act, claims to have applied for a sanctioned building plan. Respondents dismissed appeal for lack of plan approval.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner's previous application for plan sanction should be considered under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 to avoid unjust penalties.
Issues: Determination of authority's obligations in regard to processing plan sanction applications despite misaddressing.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that authorities must provide fair consideration to building plan applications and should not impose harsh penalties without proper evaluation.
Result: Writ petition allowed and prior demolition orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner applied for a sanctioned plan before undertaking construction. (Para 2 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court finds that authorities failed to process the application appropriately. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. petition falls under bbmp act's regularization provisions for good faith constructions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. emphasis on leniency when determining penalties for unapproved constructions. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ petition outcome allowing for regularization applications and quashing prior demolition orders. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short "KMC Act, 1976") and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order passed under Section 321 (3) in Appeal No. 1233 of 2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner claims to be the owner of the house property bearing No. 85 corresponding Khata No. 756/2/85, measuring East to West 40 sq.ft. and North to South 66 sq. ft. situated at 9th cross, Gajanana Nagara, Hegganahalli, Bengaluru. Petitioner is tracing title over the petition property based on registered sale date dated 18.06.1994, which is evidenced at Annexure-A.
4. Petitioner also asserts that the then Municipality, Dasarahalli, has collected development charges and petitioner’s name is reflected in the property records. Copy of the receipt for development charges is evidenced at Annexure-B.
5. While petitioner's property was brought within the jurisdiction of BBMP, after collecting necessary charges, BBMP has effected khatha in the petitioner's name and khatha extract is produced, which is evidenced at Annexure-"C".
6. The petitioner states that an application was submitted to the competent authority seeking sanction of a building plan for the construction of a residential house. A copy of the application and the plan is produced as Annexure-D. It is the petitioner’s assertion that, in terms of the applicable statutory framework, the then Commissioner of BBMP was required to either grant or reject the sanction within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. However, despite submitting the requisite application, no communication or order was issued by the concerned authority within the stipulated period. Relying on this statutory presumption, and under a bona fide belief that the application would be duly considered, the petitioner proceeded to construct a residential house by availing a housing loan and mobilizing funds from various private financial institutions.
7. The petitioner further asserts that, based on a frivolous complaint, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 08.11.2022 under Sections 321 (1) and 321(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, alleging that the construction was illegal and undertaken without a sanctioned plan. Despite filing detailed objections and bringing to the notice of the authority that an application for plan sanction had been duly submitted, respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass a confirmation order dated 23.11.2012 under Section 321 (3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 1233/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, challenging the confirmation order.
8. The Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal, holding that the construction had been carried out in the absence of an approved plan. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the order passed by respondent No. 2 did not warrant any interference and upheld the same.
9. Upon careful scrutiny of the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner had indeed submitted an application to the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner seeking approval of the proposed plan for construction of a residential house. Though learned counsel for BBMP has pointed out that the application was not properly addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, this Court is of the cons
