Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29912
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N S SANJAY GOWDA, J
SRI VINEETH NARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 18838 OF 2024 | WRIT PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G S KANNUR, SHIVA SHANKAR C
For the Respondents: SMT. SPOORTHI V, K B MONESH KUMAR
Zonal Regulations under the KTCP Act prevail over BBMP Bye-Laws in matters of balcony projections, allowing constructions without length restrictions while emphasizing floor area ratio calculations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - BBMP Bye-Laws 2003 - Regulation 14.3 vs. Regulation 3.11 of RMP 2015 - The controversy pertains to balcony projections and their implications on the floor area ratio (FAR). It was ruled that the provisions of the Zonal Regulations should prevail, allowing for balcony length without restriction, despite BBMP Bye-Laws imposing a limit. (Paras 46, 44, 42, 41)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - It was determined that the provisions framed under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (KTCP Act) have precedence over contradicting bye-laws enacted under the BBMP Act. This ensures ordered development across the planning area, maintaining consistency in regulation. (Paras 42, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, comprising a structural engineer and a limited liability partnership, challenged the BBMP Bye-Law 14.3 that restricts balcony length, arguing it conflicts with the broader provisions of the KTCP Act and relevant zoning regulations. (Para 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Zonal Regulations do not impose length restrictions on balconies, thereby outweighing the limitations set forth in the Bye-Laws. (Paras 46, 44)
Issues: The crux of the issues revolved around conflicts between the BBMP Bye-Laws and the Zonal Regulations pertaining to balcony projections and their impact on the floor area ratio. (Para 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regulations established under the KTCP Act, including Zoning Regulations, take precedence over BBMP Bye-Laws when discrepancies arise, reaffirming a regulatory framework for urban planning. (Paras 41, 42)
Result: Writ Petitions disposed of, affirming that Regulation 3.11 prevails regarding balcony construction, allowing length without limitation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions regarding building bye-laws. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definition and implications of bye-laws and far. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 15 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. arguments regarding conflict between bye-laws and zonal regulations. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 4. zonal regulations prevail over building bye-laws. (Para 36 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 5. ruling on balcony length and far considerations. (Para 44 , 46 , 47) |
CAV ORDER
1. W.P. No.1047/2025 is by a Limited Liability Partnership which is seeking for a direction to the respondents to align the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMP Bye-Laws’ for short) and with the principles of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and the Bangalore Development Authority Revised Master Plan, 2015, (RMP) particularly in relation to the balcony projections.
2. W.P. No.18838/2024 is by a Structural Engineer, who is registered in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') under the Building Bye-laws and is stated to have possessed a license as a Structural Engineer. He is also seeking for a direction in the same manner as has been sought for by the other petitioner.
3. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner in W.P. No.18838/2024 had also initially sought for declaring Byelaw 14.3 of BBMP Bye-Laws as ultra vires, but by the submission dated 18.07.2024, it was stated that he was not pressing for this prayer. Thus, the question to be considered in these petitions are only in relation to the prayer relating to alignment of the BBMP Bye-Laws in accordance with the provisions of the KMC Act as well as the RMP, 2015.
4. The grievance of the petitioners revolves around the provision made in respect of a balcony vis-à-vis the apparent conflict between the BBMP Bye-Laws and the Zonal Regulations (framed Revised Master Plan Zoning of Landuse and Regulations under the RMP, 2015).
5. To appreciate the context of the arguments and determine the questions raised by the petitioners, it would be essential to examine the provisions of the BBMP Act, the Building Bye Laws and also the KTCP Act and the RMP and the Zonal Regulations framed under it.
6. The BBMP was a Corporation constituted under the KMC Act, until the enactment of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in 2020. The BBMP under Chapter XV of the KMC Act provided for Regulation of buildings and Section 2951 conferred make bye-laws,-
(a) for the regulation or restriction of the use of sites or buildings, and (b) for the regulation or restriction of building.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1), bye-laws made under that clause may provide,- (a) that no insanitary or dangerous site shall be used for building, and (b) for the regulation or restriction of the construction of buildings intended for public worship on sites.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1), bye-laws made under that clause may provide for the following matters:-
(a) information and plans to be submitted together with applications for permission to build;
(b) height of buildings, whether absolute or relative to the width of streets;
(c) level and width of foundation, level of lowest floor and stability of structure;
(d) number and height of storeys composing a building and height of rooms;
(e) provision of sufficient open space, external or internal, and adequate means of ventilation;
(f) provision of means of egress in case of fire;
(g) provision of secondary means of access for the removal of house refuse;
(h) materials and methods of construction of external and party walls, roofs, and floors; (i) position, materials and methods of construction of hearths, smoke escapes, chimneys, staircases, privies, drains, cesspools;
(j) paving of yards;
(k) restrictions on the use of inflammable materials in buildings;the power on the BBMP to make Bye-Laws, with the approval of the Government.
7. Section 295 (3) of the Act has also
