BBMP lists 25 cases of illegal change in land use in Sadashivanagar

BBMP lists 25 cases of illegal change in land use in Sadashivanagar
The Hindu

A former Advocate-General's house rented out to a software firm

# One of the listed buildings occupied by Union Ministry of Law and Justice
# BBMP says the petitioners were served notice and given time to respond

BANGALORE: Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) on Tuesday brought to the notice of the Karnataka High Court a list of 25 buildings in Sadashivanagar, which were cases of illegal change in land use.

The counsel for BBMP said the residence of the former Advocate-General and senior advocate B.T. Parthasarthy figured in the list.

He said Mr. Parthasarthy had let out his residence to a software firm, which employed 15 persons.

The list contained names of 24 others persons whose residences had been let out to software firms, banks, marketing firms, realtors, textile and wine shops, laboratories, schools, provision stores and chartered accountancy firms.

One of the buildings in Sadashivanagar has been occupied by Union Ministry of Law and Justice and owner of the building had been issued notice.

Taking exception to such change in land use, the BBMP said any change in land use would have to be done as per the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act and the building by-laws.

It said Section 308 of the Act did not allow providing personal hearing to the petitioners and cited several Supreme Court judgments in support.

The BBMP said ends of natural justice would be deemed to have been met if the petitioners were afforded an opportunity of being heard.

Notices served

In this case, notices were served on the petitioners and adequate time given to them to reply. Moreover, the notices and orders passed subsequently could be appealed against.

Several tenants, including two accountancy firms and a software firm, submitted to the court that they had vacated the premises in Sadashivanagar and that their petitions be dismissed as withdrawn.

While recording their submissions, Justice Rammohan Reddy, who is hearing the petitions, sought to know from the BMP on whether it could afford time to other tenants to vacate the premises.

He posed the question to the BBMP after a senior advocate submitted that his client, a leading accountancy firm, wanted 18 months to vacate the premises.

Another petitioner too sought time. In both the cases, the court noted that the owners of the buildings had not been arrayed as parties.

The court directed the owners of the buildings to be impleaded as parties and adjourned hearing on the petitions.