RAMACHANDRA GANAPATI HEGDE Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the respondent authorities of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP, for short) in sanctioning a plan for construction of a residential and commercial building in favour of the contesting respondents No.4 to 6. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the representations given by the petitioner to direct them to cancel the sanctioned plan and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) It is evident from the pleadings that the respondent-BBMP has sanctioned the plan in favour of respondents No.4 to 6. However, no specific grounds are made out in the writ petition pointing out to the relevant provisions of law to state that the BBMP authorities could not have sanctioned the plan in contravention of any of the provisions of law.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents has taken this Court through the 'zonal regulations' annexed to the Revised Master Plan- 2015, Bengaluru. Learned Counsel submits that admittedly, the property in question is in a residential area. However, provision is made in the 'zonal regulations' that in a residential (main) area, ancillary use is allowable to an extent of 20% of the total built up area or 50 sqr.mtrs., whichever is higher. Learned Counsel submits that there is no reference to the width of the road for seeking permission to use 20% of the building for commercial purpose. That being the position, no fault can be found in the action of the respondent-BBMP in sanctioning the plan permitting 20% of the building to be used for commercial purpose.