Purchasing Even 50 Sq Mtrs Plot A Dream In Bangalore, Authorities Should Favourably Consider Sanctioning Building Plans: High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no blanket prohibition which is imposed as regards sanction of construction plan on a plot measuring less than 50 sq. metres under the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003.Instead such sanction in respect of private landowners would have to be considered and acceded to by following due principles of law, in the interest of...
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no blanket prohibition which is imposed as regards sanction of construction plan on a plot measuring less than 50 sq. metres under the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003.
Instead such sanction in respect of private landowners would have to be considered and acceded to by following due principles of law, in the interest of citizens, it added.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “Considering the value of land in a city like Bangalore even purchase of a plot less than 50 sq. mtrs. is a dream for many of the persons and they would have bought such a property by investing their hard-earned money probably their life savings and even in some cases by obtaining financial accommodation from not only banks but from private lenders.”
It added “Thus, I am of the considered opinion that unless there is some malafides or unless the use of such a plot is likely to cause serious harm and injury to the town planning and/or services being provided by any governmental agency, the authorities in question ought to consider a request made by such plot owners favourably and in a beneficial manner for such person.”
The court made the observation while hearing a batch of petitioners filed either contending that private respondents have put up construction illegally and unauthorizedly without obtaining plan sanction and in violation of the Bye-Laws. While other petitioners are those against whom the Corporation has taken action, for having put up construction illegally and unauthorizedly without obtaining plan sanction.
The court referred to Bye-Laws 7.2 of the 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 sqm. 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 plots sub-divided due to family partitions, the Authority may relax the above conditions.”
It said if sites for housing schemes for EWS, LIG, Slum Clearance and Improvement Schemes as well as reconstruction in case of densely populated areas can be less than 50 Square metres, "I see no reason why the same would not be applicable to sites of private individuals.” Court said it is left to the State to provide and make known necessary guidelines for the concerned officers to apply to in such cases.
Court said petitioners and/or the respondents in the case had already put up construction without obtaining plan sanction but it would not be in the interest of justice to right away demolish those construction.
“I am of the considered opinion that an opportunity would also have to be given to the land owner who has put up construction without having obtained a plan sanction to now submit a fresh application for sanction in terms of the above observations, such application for plan sanction to be accompanied by such documents as necessary which shall be considered by the jurisdictional authority and to be made within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of guidelines by the Urban Development Department.”
Disposing of the petitions it directed that the matter be re-listed on 29.01.2024 to enable the Principal Secretary to place the guidelines so formulated in respect of plots measuring 50 Square metres or lesser.
Appearance: Advocate Manjunatha S V for Petitioner.
Advocate Karthikeyan B S for R1 TO R4.
Advocate C.V. Annaiah for R5.
Advocate Amaresh A Anagadi for R6.
Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol for State government.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
Case Title: Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 7204 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 26829 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION NO. 11852 OF 2021 WRIT PETITION NO. 22426 OF 2022, WRIT PETITION NO. 16580 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 16912 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 19268 OF 2023, WRIT PETITION NO. 22463 OF 2023.