Skip to main content

Can’t demolish a building without cancelling approved plan

NAMA KRISHNAIAH vs BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
21 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
10 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le...
1 comment
Read more