Skip to main content

Can’t demolish a building without cancelling approved plan


The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahangara Palike (BBMP) not to demolish a multi-storey building which has been built abutting a storm-water drain as per the plan approved by the authorities, without cancelling the plan as per the law.
Justice Anand Byrareddy passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by S.N. Builders and Developers and its managing director Shah Sanjay. The court restrained the authorities from taking any coercive action against the petitioner or the multi-storeyed apartment complex as long as the sanctioned plan stood valid.
Earlier, the counsel contended that the personnel of the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (BMTF) were “harassing” the petitioner by asking him to appear before them though there was no specific complaint against him. It was also informed to the court that the BBMP could possibly demolish a multi-storeyed building built by the petitioner at Bilekahalli abutting a storm-water drain while pointing out that the building was built as per the plan approved by the authorities.
At this stage, the court wondered how the civic body could demolish buildings built as per the approved plan without first cancelling the sanctioned plan by following due process of law in case of any construction that has been put up by encroaching upon public land or violating regulations. 
No arrest or harassment
While hearing petitions filed by some of the serving and retired officials of the BBMP and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) against registration of FIR for approving plans for construction in buffer zone, the court directed the BMTF not to arrest them or not to “harass” them when they appear before the investigating agency as per the court order for cooperating with the probe.
Any compensation?
The court also wondered was there any mechanism to pay compensation for those people who had lost their shelter overnight because of the BBMP’s drive against storm-water drain “encroachment”.
“Where do these people go for cover? Nobody is talking about these aspects,” Mr. Justice Byrareddy observed orally.
Meanwhile, the government counsel said the demolition exercise was undertaken only on encroachments of storm-water drains, and no action was taken against construction in buffer zones as the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, where verdict of the National Green Tribunal on buffer zone had been challenged.


Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)

5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…


Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,


Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…