Court upholds order in building norms violation case

Court upholds order in building norms violation case

The Hindu

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Monday said that though a standing committee of a municipal corporation has powers under the civic Act, it could not regularise deviations in buildings beyond what is permitted in the law.

A Division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice B. Padmaraj and Justice V. Jaganathan said it found no justification in the order of a standing committee of the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (HDMC) in passing a resolution to regularise a nursing home in Hubli which had violated building norms by 65 per cent.

The appellants, Rajarathan Ghanti and his wife Rekha Ghanti had appealed against a single judge order of November 11, 2005 directing the HDMC to demolish the violations.

The single judge had allowed a petition by Chandrashekar S. Armani and two others, who had alleged that Ghanti Nursing Home in Vidyanagar had violated the building bylaws by 65 per cent and this had been borne out by a survey of illegal buildings carried out by the HDMC Commissioner.

The standing committee on September 18, 2002 passed a resolution deciding to regularise the violation by levying a fine of Rs. 10,000.

It later passed another resolution deciding the hike in penalty to Rs. 15,000.

The single judge had come down heavily on the standing committee and said it had the right to only regularise 5 per cent deviations. He set aside both the resolutions and directed the authorities to demolish within two weeks the deviations in the building.

The Bench upheld the order of the single judge, saying that it did not find any reason to disagree with the single judge's order. It said Regulation 5.6 of Building Bylaws do not permit regularisation of deviations of more than 5 per cent.

Notice

A Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Padmaraj and Mr. Justice Jagannathan on Monday ordered issue of notices to the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition by B. Krishna Bhat.

The petitioner had prayed that the Master Plan of the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for 2015 be declared as unconstitutional and void.

He had also prayed for striking down the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act of 2004 as ultra vires.

He said Bangalore had been growing rapidly and the authorities had passed the Town and Country Planning Act in 1963 for ensuring a planned and organised growth of lands. The Act had been later amended.

In 1995, the CDP of Bangalore provided for maintaining specific areas earmarked as green belts.

This was to preserve and protect the greenery in and around Bangalore and also maintain the ecological balance. On January 5, 1995, the Government approved the CDP.

On July 11, 2005, the BDA published a draft master plan of the CDP for 2015. The petitioner claimed that the BDA had tried to include the green belt areas for development.

He said he had already filed a petition on the encroachments in the green belt area and the High Court, in its interim order, directed its demolition.

He alleged that the green belt area was being extended to protect such encroachments.

He urged the court to declare the draft plan as illegal and unconstitutional.