IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.22568 OF 2019 (LB-BBMP) BETWEEN:
HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY, S/O B.H.KRISHNASWAMY, AGED 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.1214, 11TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR – 1, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102.
AND:
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR C FOR SRI MALLAREDDY, ADVOCATES) 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NO.1, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 068.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, BRUHATH BANGALORE ... PETITIONER MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NO.1, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 068.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 14TH ‘B’ CROSS, BBMP PARK, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 102.
5. NAVEEN PRAKASH, S/O MR.B.PRAKASH, MAJOR,REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER & POWER OF ATTORNEY, SRI.B.PRAKASH, R/AT FLAT NO.102, I FLOOR, SRI.SAI NILAYA, NO.1069, 24TH MAIN ROAD, I SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 102.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.PADMANABHA MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.VENUGOPALA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R4 TO STOP FORTHWITH THE ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BEING PUT UP AT THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY THE R-5 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to stop forthwith the illegal and unauthorized construction being put up at the schedule property by the respondent No.5;
(ii) Demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction put up by the respondent No.5 at the schedule property at the cost of the respondent No.5;
(iii) Grant costs of the proceedings;
(iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.1214, BBMP Katha No.1034/1214 situated in HSR Layout, Bengaluru. The fifth respondent is the owner of the adjacent property bearing No.1215, BBMP Katha No.1035/1215. The fifth respondent has obtained the building plan from the BBMP for construction of the basement floor, ground floor, first floor and the second floor. By violating the sanction plan the fifth respondent is illegally constructing the house. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has given a number of representations to the respondent Corporation vide Annexure-C series. Since the respondent Corporation has not taken any action, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Sri C.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.1214, BBMP Katha No.1034/1214. The adjacent owner of the property, the fifth respondent herein is constructing a building contrary to the sanctioned building plan. Inspite of the petitioner giving repeated representations vide Annexure-C series, the respondent Corporation has not taken any action. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Sri Padmanabha Mahale, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person. He has no locus standi to file the petition. Secondly, he contended that the fifth respondent has applied to the Corporation for modification of the plan.
5. Sri H.Devendrappa, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 03.06.2019 the Joint Commissioner has filed the report stating that there is a violation of the building plan and if this Court grants some reasonable time, the authority will take action in accordance with law. He further submits that if any application is filed by the fifth respondent for modification of the plan, the same will be considered in accordance with law.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ papers.
7. Detailed narration of facts would not call for reiteration.
This Court, by order dated 03.06.2019 directed the second respondent to inspect the construction and submit a report with regard to the violations, if any and also render opinion as to whether the construction is in compliance with the sanction plan or in violation of the same. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Joint Commissioner has submitted a report with the following observations:
“1. The actual setbacks provided are less than the setbacks shown in the sanctioned plan. The sketch showing the variations between the setbacks provided in the sanctioned plan and actual setbacks at ground floor level is herein enclosed as Annexure- II.
2. Ramp provided to basement floor is very steep with insufficient head room, which makes the ramp not suitable for vehicular movement. The position of ramp has also been changed from North- East corner to center of the entrance to basement floor.
3. In the said building under construction, third floor having a total built up area of 145.25 sq.m. has also been put up. The construction of third floor has not been incorporated in the building plan sanctioned by BBMP.”
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the only direction that can be issued to the Corporation is to take action in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the fifth respondent for modification of plan, if law permits.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VK