IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.29183/2019 (LB BMP) BETWEEN SRI MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA IYER, R/AT 3208/25/1, 6TH CROSS END, 6TH MAIN, GAYATHRINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560021.
(BY SRI G R MOHAN, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MALLESWARAM SUB DIVISION, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, M K ROAD, ... PETITIONER BENGALURU SEVA KENDRA, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560003 4. SMT. S RUKUMINI AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. V S KUMAR, R/AT NO. 1843, 6TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, D-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGARA, BENGALURU 560010 (BY SRI ANANDEESWAR D.R, HCGP FOR R1, ... RESPONDENTS SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3, NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-'F' DATED 07.06.2019 BY TAKING SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING IN VIOLATION OF SANCTIONED PLAN ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this court praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and thereby direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the complaint of the petitioner vide Annexure-F to the writ petition dated 07.06.2019 and to take suitable action against the 4th respondent for constructing the building in violation of sanctioned plan.
3. Matter was listed on 15.07.2019 on which date the learned counsel Smt. Saritha Kulkarni was directed to take notice and further the 3rd respondent was directed to inspect the disputed site as depicted in Annexure-G series and furnish a status report to the court.
4. Today, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has filed a memo enclosing therewith a report submitted by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent after inspection of the site has held that the deviation amounts to a mere 4% and deviation up to 5% are condonable. It is further submitted that the construction is being put-up in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the building plan itself could not have been sanctioned as the same measures less than 50 square metres. He would take the court through the provisions of by-law 7.2 of The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003 which reads as under:-
“No plan shall be sanctioned for a residential detached building on a plot measuring less than 50 sq. mtrs. Or having width less than 6 metres. In specific cases of sites for housing schemes for EWS, LIG, Slum Clearance and Improvement Schemes as well as reconstruction in case of densely populated areas, and plot sub-divided due to family partitions, the Authority may relax the above conditions.”
6. He would further invite the attention of the court to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at table VI to contend that the approved plan is contrary to the same as the Floor Area Ratio allowed under the sanction plan is in excess of the permissible limits and under table VI of the by-laws.
7. It is seen that the building plan that is sanctioned is for demolition and reconstruction. The extent of set back is also stipulated and what is approved is stilt floor+3 floors. In the light of the fact that the application being one for demolition and reconstruction, the same comes within the exception provided under by-law of 7.2 as noted supra. That being the case this court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not demonstrated a case of any gross violation. Hence, in the light of the report and read in conjunction of the provisions of by-law, the court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case and the writ petition is misconceived in the light of the exception provided under the provisions of by-law 7.2.
Hence, writ petition stands rejected. In the event, the respondent puts-up any construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the authorities.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Chs* CT-HR