Karnataka High Court Urges Collaborative Action Plan To Address Illegal Constructions In Bengaluru

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed all the stakeholders to come together and prepare a composite action plan to address the issue of demolition and removal of illegal structures and for taking preventive measures against such illegal constructions in Bengaluru City. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal emphasised that a unified approach is vital for substantial progress, asserting that merely passing orders and seeking reports would be insufficient.

“We are of the opinion that the issue in the present PIL requires a wholistic approach and unless all the stakeholders jointly come together and prepare a composite action plan there will be no progress in the matter and passing orders by this court and calling reports from respondents would be nothing but a paper formality.”

The Court was dealing with a suo-motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 2019. The observations come in the wake of multiple writ petitions filed against the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for alleged inaction in tackling illegal structures and preventing their proliferation.

Acknowledging the necessity of construction activities in the swiftly developing city, the Court found that halting construction altogether is not feasible. However, it stressed that a concerted effort is required from all stakeholders to manage this growth and to ensure that illegal constructions are curbed effectively.

The Bench emphasised that this issue should not be treated as adversarial by the authorities and that they should adopt a positive approach to address it.

“We are aware of the fact that considering Bengaluru city being a fast developing city and renowned as Hub for the IT sector etc. Construction is the activity which will go on and it can’t be stopped overnight. Thus concentrated efforts are required to be made by all stakeholders and as this court in its order dated 25-11-2019 observed that respondents may not treat this litigation as adversarial. We hope and trust that respondents authority would show a positive approach for dealing with this issue.”

The Court, in its earlier order dated November 25, 2019, had already issued detailed directions to the BBMP. These directions included conducting a phased survey of illegal constructions, categorizing them based on permission status, and addressing issues related to inadequate staffing and law officers.

The Bench now called upon the BBMP and the State Government to provide more detailed responses, including comprehensive action plans, within a three-week timeframe.

The order had also taken note as far as the non-availability of staff is concerned and directed the BBMP to send a proposal to the state for sanction of additional posts and also of filling up of law officers posts vacant with BBMP.

The court recorded the submissions made by the amicus curiae referring to the reports filed by the BBMP that though there are cases of demolition notices being issued, are in good number the actual demolition is minimal. It will clearly indicate that the approach of the BBMP authorities can be said to be a selective approach. The demolition is of such construction which is a tin shed structure, mostly a temporary structure.

The Bench also highlighted a discrepancy in the compliance affidavit filed by the BBMP. It pointed out that the affidavit did not sufficiently address concerns related to inadequate staff or law officers, nor did it clarify whether the proposed measures were handed over to the Chief Secretary of the state, as directed in the court's previous order.

“When the BBMP finds in its survey the illegal structures and notices are issued, the demolition process is initiated only against a handful or a few persons who are not so economically sound...We are unable to find any material in the compliance affidavit in so far as the issue of inadequate staff or law officers and the compliance affidavit is silent on the aspect whether proposal referred in the order of 25-11-2019, is handed over to CS of state and if such proposal is handed over when it is handed over and if it is handed over what are steps taken by BBMP to apprise the government to take immediate steps in consonance with order of this court. If the proposal is not submitted to the Chief Secretary, why is it not submitted inspite of observation being made by the court?"

The case will be next heard after three weeks.

Case Title: High Court of Karnataka and The State of Karnataka & Others

Case NO: WP 41517/2019