Allowed

Smt Nandini v. K.G.F. Urban Development Authority

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/51010/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order responds to a writ petition seeking declaration of deemed building sanctions and quashing of a demolition notice. The court held that byelaws do not require rear/right/left setbacks for 240 sq.mtr plots. Petition T allowed; demolition notice quashed; formal sanction and Occupancy Certificate directed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; demolition notice quashed; formal building sanction directed within original approval timeframe; Occupancy Certificate directed within 30 days.

Smt Nandini Vs K.G.F. Urban Development Authority — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50304 WP No. 51010 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51010 OF 2013 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT NANDINI W/O K.PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶8

SRI K PERUMAL S/O KANAKAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1586, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT 563114.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

K.G.F. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 6^TH CROSS, ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F. 563122, KOLAR BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BANGARPET TOWN, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT 563124, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND

¶17

RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

¶18

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50304 WP No. 51010 of 2013

¶20

BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

RAJA L. SAMPATH S/O LATE RAJA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA AGED 52 YEARS, NO. 571, BAZAAR STREET, BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.1.2014)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. R L N MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.B. PATIL., AGA FOR R3; SRI. D. PRABHAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED A DEEMED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE & BUILDING SANCTION PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF RCC ROOFED COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

a. Declare that the petitioners have been granted a deemed commencement certificate and building sanction plan for the purpose of construction of RCC roofed commercial building in the schedule property.

¶30

b. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the communication dated 29.6.2013 Annexure-P, issued by the R1 in so far as it relates to directing the petitioners to demolish the existing building in the schedule property.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50304 WP No. 51010 of 2013

¶32

c. Issue writ of Mandamus directing the R2 to consider the application dated 04.02.2013 Annexure-L submitted by the petitioner for issuance of trade licence and further issue trade licence and occupancy certificate to the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶33

d. Direct the R1 to consider the application AnnexureO dated 16.05.2013 filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue No objection Certificate for the purpose of issuance of trade licence by the R2 to the petitioners.

¶34

e. Issue such other relief/s as it deems fit to grant in favour of the petitioner by this Hon’ble Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the interest of justice.

¶35

During the pendency of the matter, inspection of the property of the petitioner was directed to be carried. When a report was received as regards terrace floor, learned counsel for the petitioner indicated that the said violation would be demolished bringing the same in conformity with the Building byelaws. Subsequent thereto, demolition was effected and respondent No.1 has confirmed that the construction is in accordance with the Building Byelaws. All the deviations have been removed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:50304 WP No. 51010 of 2013

¶38

Thereafter, respondent No.4 sought to contend that the removal is not in terms of the applicable Building Byelaws. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 indicated that the setbacks have not been left on the left, right and back side of the building, hence he was called upon to produce the byelaws to indicate the same. Today though respondent No.4 has not produced the bylaws, petitioner has produced the same.

¶39

A perusal of the said byelaws would indicate that the plot of the petitioner measuring 240 sq.mtrs, would have to have setback of one mtr. in the front and no setback is prescribed on the left, right and rear portion. That being the case, respondent No.1-authority having categorically indicated that the setback in the front is proper and correct, submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the applicable setback for the left, right and rear has not been left cannot be countenanced under law or fact, inasmuch as in terms of the Building byelaws, no setback is to be left on

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50304 WP No. 51010 of 2013

¶41

right, left and rear portion of the property measuring 240 sq.mtrs. The building now brought in compliance with the building byelaws as certified by respondent No.1, as prevalent as on the date building was constructed, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. Though there is deemed commencement certificate and building plan sanctioned, for the purposes of formality and completion, respondent No.1 is directed to issue formal commencement certificate and formal building plan sanction in accordance with Building Byelaws at the time when the plan sanction had been initially approved then.

¶45

iii. The communication dated 29.06.2013 at Annexure-P no longer survives for consideration, as such stands quashed.

¶46

iv. Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1 to issue Occupancy Certificate within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Smt Nandini v. K.G.F. Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nandini v. K.G.F. Urban Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Neelakanta Dixit Vs State of Karnataka

S N D Sampath Vs Competent Authority and Assistant Commissioner

Mr P H Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kodagu District Co. Operative Central Bank Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India

B. Viswanath Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Nithin Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka