Karnataka High Court
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara ... vs U Dhanngaya Naidu on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No.5449 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.5449 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
BBMP SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
Digitally
signed by 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
RUPA V REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
Location: ENGINEER, PADMANABHANAGAR SUB-DIVISION
High Court of NO.15A BUS STOP, CORPORATION PALIKE
Karnataka
BENGALURU-560 070.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.N. PUTTEGOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. U. DHANNGAYA NAIDU
S/O LATE CHANGAMA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO.35, 4TH CROSS
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RAMAMURTHY, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.6.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.21827/2014 (LB-BMP)
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
NO.21827/2014 (LB-BMP)FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
-2-
WA No.5449 of 2017
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against an order
dated 23.06.2017 passed by Learned Single Judge by which
writ petition filed by respondent has been allowed with a
costs of Rs.5,000/-. In order to appreciate the grievance of
the appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are stated
infra.
2. The appellant is a statutory body constituted
under Section 4 of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Act. The appellant received a complaint from public in
general with regard to illegal activity which was been carried
out by respondent at property bearing No.35 of Ektamadu
Village, Bangalore South Taluk by bifurcating a plot into 20
x 40 feet. The appellant on enquiry, learnt that the
respondent is carrying out the construction without
obtaining any plan, licence or permission from BBMP. The
appellant on 28.06.2012, asked the respondent to produce
WA No.5449 of 2017
the sanction plan and sketch. However, the respondent
failed to produce the requisite documents.
3. Thereafter, the respondent was asked to stop the
construction. Though the respondent stopped the
construction initially for sometime. However, he again
started illegal construction. The appellant thereupon issued
a notice under Section 321 of Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for short). The respondent submitted a reply on 18.10.2012.
Thereafter, the appellant passed an order on 06.11.2012
under Section 321(3) of the Act.
4. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order in
an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), which
was dismissed by an order dated 29.04.2014. The
respondent thereupon challenged the orders dated
06.11.2012 passed by the appellant as well as the order
dated 29.04.2014 passed by the tribunal in a writ petition.
WA No.5449 of 2017
5. The Learned Single Judge by an order dated
23.06.2017 inter alia held that for raising a construction on
a plot measuring less than 6 meters in width, no building
permission is required. It was further held that under Bye
Law 7.2 of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building
Bye Laws, 2003 the respondent was not required to obtain
any sanction plan and therefore, the question of initiating a
proceeding under Section 321 of the Act does not arise.
Accordingly, the orders passed by the appellant dated
06.11.2012 as well as the order dated 29.04.2014 passed by
the tribunal were quashed. The appeal was allowed by
imposing a costs of Rs.5,000/-. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
Learned Single Judge grossly erred in holding that no
permission is required to raise a construction on the plot
measuring 6 meters in width. It is further submitted that
Learned Single Judge has not taken into account the
relevant provisions of the Act as well as the Bye law.
WA No.5449 of 2017
7. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the
respondent has supported the order passed by the Learned
Single Judge and has submitted tat in view of Clause 7.2 of
the Bye Laws, the appellant was not required to obtain any
sanction.
8. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. Section 299 and
300 of the Act read as under:
299. Expenses in respect of
requisition of auditors to be payable out
of Municipal Fund.--All expenses incurred
by a municipal council in complying with
any requisition of an auditor under sub-
section (1) of section 291 shall be payable
out of the municipal fund.
300. Transmission of accounts to
Government.--The municipal council shall,
as soon as the annual accounts have been
finally passed by it, transmit to the
Government, or any officer duly authorised
by it in this behalf, a copy thereof, or an
account in the form prescribed in this behalf,
and shall furnish such details and vouchers
WA No.5449 of 2017
relating to the same, as the Government or
such officer may, from time to time, direct.
Thus, under the aforesaid provisions, a person who
intends to raise a construction or re construct a building is
required to obtain permission and the statute contains a
prohibition against commencement of the work without
permission.
9. Bye Law 7.2 of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike Building Bye Laws, 2003reads as under:
7.2. No plan shall be sanctioned for a
residential detached building on a plot
measuring less than 50 square meters or
having width less than 6 meters. 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.
From perusal of the aforesaid Bye Law, it is evident
that the aforesaid Bye-Law prohibits an authority from
sanction of a plan for a residential detached building on a
WA No.5449 of 2017
plot measuring less than 50 square meters or having a
width less than 6 meters. The aforesaid Bye Law does not
exempt a person raising construction not to obtain a plan.
10. The Learned Single Judge has misread Bye Law
7.2 of Building Bye Laws to mean that no building
permission is required for raising construction on a plot
measuring less than 6 meters in width. Such a construction
is contrary to the plain language of the Bye law and is in
contravention of Section 299 and 300 of the Act.
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order
dated 23.06.2017 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is
accordingly quashed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
