The High Court cannot resolve disputed questions of fact under Article 226; however, to ensure justice in cases of alleged unauthorized construction, it may order a re-survey of the property to determine actual deviations before proceeding with demolition or regularization.

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2025 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.259/2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AT BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. On the ground that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the respondents have initiated action against the petitioner and after inspection of the property of the petitioner, a provisional order and a confirmatory order have been passed against the petitioner, wherein a finding has been given that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and it has been ordered that, that portion of the property which is in violation of the sanctioned plan be demolished.

2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.1. Respondent no.1, based on the pleadings and documents produced by the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the conclusion arrived at in the provisional order and the confirmation order to be erroneous and for the said reason has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, notices as contemplated under law, were not issued prior to the passing of the provisional order and the confirmation order to the petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 has not verified the documents of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that, if a new inspection were to be conducted then in that event petitioner would be able to show that she has put up construction only in accordance with the sanctioned plan and not otherwise. Petitioner further submits that if upon a new inspection, it is found that petitioner has put up construction in violation of the sanctioned plan, the petitioner herself will voluntarily demolish the same or will seek regularization of permissible deviations in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for respondents, upon instructions, submits that due notices have been issued to the petitioner. She submits that petitioner has put up construction in violation of building bye-laws and hence the provisional order and confirmatory order have been issued to the petitioner in accordance with law. She also justifies the impugned order passed in the appeal by respondent no.1 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The lis in the present writ petition pertains to a disputed question of fact. That is, whether the petitioner has put up construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan or not and if there are any deviations, can they be saved by the petitioner, by making a fresh application in accordance with the amended bye-laws or not. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide the issue as it pertains to disputed question of facts.

6. No person has a right to put up construction in violation of sanctioned plan, and if such construction is put up, then the same is liable to