Karnataka High Court Issues General Directions to BBMP Suggesting Preventive Measures to Curb Unauthorised Constructions
Introduction In a landmark judgment on January 19, 2024, the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Sri Kushal Ram Reddy vs Brijhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others, issued crucial directions to the BBMP, suggesting preventive measures against unauthorized constructions. The court emphasized the need for a proactive approach to curb violations of building plans.
It is really good to learn that while taking the most commendable step in the right direction, the Karnataka High Court in a most laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Sri Kushal Ram Reddy vs Brijhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others in Writ Petition No. 11261 of 2023 (LB-BMP) and cited in 2024 Live Law (Kar) 57 and so also in Neutral Citation No. – NC:2024:KHC:2667 that was pronounced as recently as on January 19, 2024 has issued general directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palika (BBMP) suggesting preventive steps to be taken so that new constructions are not carried out in violation of building plans. We thus see that a Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj took on record the office order dated 27.07.2023 issued by the Chief Commissioner to all the officers enclosing the flowcharts showing stages of action to be taken for removal of violated portion and demolition of unauthorized construction, as also the table showing the timeline for officers for taking action for unauthorized construction. However, it said what is of importance is the preventive steps taken so that the constructions are not in violation.
While stating the purpose of this writ petition, it is stated right on top prior to the start of this noteworthy judgment that, “This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records in respect of the schedule property from the file of respondent No.1 to 4; issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the representations dated 14.02.2023, 28.02.2023, 20.03.2023 and 18.04.2023 produced at Annexure – A, B, C and D respectively to the present writ petition in accordance with law and expeditiously issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent 1 to 4 to demolish the construction put up illegally by encroaching public road towards eastern and northern side of the schedule property.”
At the very outset, this notable judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Suraj Govindaraj sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the Representation dated 14/02/2023, 28-02- 2023, 20-03-2023 and 18/04/2023 produced at Annexure-A,B,C & D respectively to the present writ Petition in accordance with law and expeditiously;
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to demolish the construction put up illegally by encroaching public road towards eastern and northern side of the schedule property.
c) Issue such other Order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an Order as to the costs of the above case; in the interest of justice and equity.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The grievance of the petitioner is that, respondent No.5, without obtaining the plan sanction, in violation of the building bye-laws, was putting up construction by encroaching the public road. Despite several complaints having been made by the petitioner to the authorities, no action was taken. Respondent No.1 being a statutory authority, is responsible for the administration and orderly development of the city of Bengaluru. Respondent No.4 being the Executive Engineer, has a statutory duty to monitor the orderly development of the city of Bengaluru, Respondent No.2 being the Zonal Commissioner and respondent No.3 being the Additional Director, Town Planning, are also to ensure that construction can be only carried on after plans are sanctioned.”
As we see, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “Furthermore, construction has to be carried out in terms of the sanctioned plan, which was sanctioned in accordance with the building bye-laws. The manner in which the official respondents have permitted respondent No.5 to encroach upon the public road and put up construction in violation of the building plan, would only indicate that they abdicated their responsibilities and are not discharging their duties and it is in that background that the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 4 that, “On 07.08.2023, this Court had directed respondent No.4 to cause an inspection of the property, ascertain if any plan was sanctioned and if the construction was in accordance with the plan sanctioned.”
To be sure, the Bench points out in para 5 that, “On 11.09.2023, field inspection report dated 01.09.2023 was filed, which ex-facie indicates that there is violation of plan sanction with considerable deviation.”
Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 12 mandating that, “In view of the said office order and the compliance affidavit, it is seen that there is methodology which is now proposed to be adopted by the Corporation in respect of unauthorized construction. What is of importance is the preventive steps taken so that the constructions are not in violation, this aspect has not been addressed, the same being lacking in certain aspects, the following general directions are issued:
1) Before grant of any plan sanction, when an application for plan sanction is made, the Corporation authorities to secure the contact details of the applicant, the Architect and Supervisor of construction, including the complete postal address (both residential and official), mobile number, e-mail ID, Whatsapp number, telegram number etc.
2) Once the plan is sanctioned, periodical inspection to be conducted once in 30 days by the concerned Ward Officer/Engineer and a report be filed in relation to such inspection being carried out, to ascertain if the construction is as per the plan sanctioned and report to be filed detailing out the nature of inspection carried out, the compliance with plan sanctioned or violation of the plan sanctioned.
3) In the event of there being any violation, notice to be issued immediately to the owner/builder or the person who has obtained the plan sanction notifying the deviation and calling upon him to remove the said deviation, in terms of Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020.
4) BWSSB and BESCOM database to be integrated with the BBMP database.
5) Intimation to be given to concerned officer of BBMP whenever there is any electricity connection sanctioned temporarily or permanent, water connection sanctioned temporary or permanent, which can be crosschecked with the database of BBMP to ascertain if there is plan sanction in respect of that particular property which has been issued.
6) If there is no plan sanction which has been issued, necessary inspection to be carried out by the Officers of the BBMP, notices to be issued calling upon the owner to produce the sanction plan, if not so produced to take necessary action under Section 248 of the BBMP Act.
7) The details of all plan sanctions, electricity connection sanctions, water connection sanctions, inspection reports, notices issued and any action taken by the BBMP in respect of the particular property to be uploaded on to the website of the BBMP.
8) BBMP to maintain a database of the BBMP so as to enable the verification thereof by all the concerned officers.
9) BBMP to mandate that the owners/Architects/ Supervisors of the construction, file affidavits after completion of foundation and footing that the said foundation and footing is in accordance with the plan sanctioned.
10) Affidavits to be filed after construction of columns certifying that the construction of columns is as per the plan sanctioned.
11) Affidavit to be filed after the roof of each floor is put up certifying that the construction is in terms of the plan sanctioned.
12) In this regard, it be mandated that irrespective of the above milestones being reached or not, affidavits to be filed every three months that the construction as on that date is in terms of the plan sanctioned.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 13 that, “Compliance report to be filed by the Chief Commissioner in regard to the above directions within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
As a corollary, the Bench then observes and directs in para 14 that, “In view of the grievance of the petitioner having already been addressed by issuance of confirmatory order Sub-Section 3 Section 248 of the BBMP Act, which is now pending consideration in appeal before the Chief Commissioner, depending on the outcome thereon, the concerned officers of the Corporation are directed to take action in terms of the office order dated 27.07.2023. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 15 that, “Though the above matter is disposed of, to report compliance re-list on 02.04.2024.”
All said and done, it has to be conceded most humbly that the most commendable general directions that have been issued to BBMP suggesting preventive measures to curb unauthorized constructions must be implemented in totality and at the earliest. There can be no gainsaying that it will go a long way in curbing unauthorized constructions that are coming up so rapidly in so many parts of the State and which is the crying need of the hour also! No denying it!
Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court’s proactive stance and issuance of preventive measures mark a commendable step towards curbing unauthorized constructions. The detailed directives emphasize transparency, accountability, and regular checks to ensure that future constructions align with approved plans. This judgment serves as a crucial guideline for municipal bodies and authorities in addressing the growing concern of unauthorized constructions. As the matter is disposed of, the court has scheduled a re-list on April 2, 2024, ensuring ongoing compliance and addressing any subsequent developments. It is imperative for the BBMP to implement these measures promptly for effective control and enforcement in the interest of orderly urban development.
Author Bio
