YASHODHA RAO Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ to quash the sanctioned plan LP No.J.C.West 282/10-11 granted in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 as at Annexure-A. Consequently, a direction is sought for demolition of the structure built on site No.24 i.e., 1662/6, 2nd cross, Ramamohanapuram, Bangalore 21. In the alternative, it is prayed that the private respondents be directed to pull down the structure on the eastern side of their property which is to the western side of the petitioner's property and thereafter leave a margin of 4.5 meters i.e., 15 feet from the boundary of petitioner's property. The prayer No.2 made in the petition is however not pressed as the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted to that effect.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Nos.1662/7 and 1662/7A, II Main, Ramamohanapuram, Bangalore 21. To the western side of that property is the property bearing No.1662/6 which was earlier owned by Raman family. The said property has now been purchased by the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Though the petitioner refers to them as 'Sharma Group', it is disputed by the respondents. That in my opinion is besides the point inasmuch as the sale deed dated 23.10.2009 indicates that it is purchased by respondent Nos.6 and 7 and that would hold good. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 have thereafter obtained sanction of the impugned building plan from respondent No.1 and is proceeding with the construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier the property had grand setback, but the plan which has been approved contains setback of one meter on the sides. It is therefore contended that the approval of such plan for construction is contrary to the Building Bye-laws-2003 of the first respondent. Hence, the building constructed based on such plan is unauthorised and therefore the petitioner seeks for demolition of the building or bring it in conformity with the Bye-laws on its western side by providing set back of 4.5 meters.

(3.) Though what is noted above is the present grievance, the petitioner also refers to the allegation that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 have violated even the plan sanctioned contrary to law and there are deviations in the construction from the sanctioned plan as well. In that regard, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.33248/2011 wherein the official respondents had inspected the building as directed by this Court and violation of 30.67% on front side and 20% on right was reported. Thereafter action as contemplated under Section 321(1) of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short) was initiated which culminated in an appeal and is presently pending in Appeal No.1031/2011 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short). The dispute therein is about the violation of the sanctioned plan as there is deviation, while in the instant petition, the very sanction of the plan is alleged to be contrary to the requirement under the Building Bye-laws 2003.