Karnataka HC Directs BBMP To Be Careful Of Complaints Filed By Parties To Settle Personal Scores

The Karnataka High Court has recently directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to be cautious about complaints made by a party to a civil proceedings against its opponent, and to take action only where required by law.

A single judge bench Justice Suraj Govindaraj granted the petition filed by one Ramamurthy N and vacated the corporation’s decision issued under Section 321 (3) of the Municipal Corporation Act against him based on his brother’s complaint.

“The Corporation to be careful in these situations and take necessary action in accordance with law and not to be used as a tool by a private party to settle private scores,” the bench stated.

The BBMP issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Act in response to a complaint submitted by the petitioner’s brother, N. Radhakrishna. It was claimed that the petitioner altered the premises without first getting plan approval.

The petitioner filed an appeal with the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which was dismissed on February 20, 2016. As a result, he moved the High Court.

Ramamurthy claimed that the BBMP bought a section of the land and issued Transferable Development Rights as a result. He was asked to demolish the portion acquired, and demolition took place in furtherance of the same, and after the demolition of a portion of the building in order to make the building habitable, necessary works were carried out, particularly the installation of a rolling shutter, the same is not an alteration and or construction.

As a result, he asserted, there was no obligation to get plan sanction, as the BBMP alleged.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the BBMP issued notices solely on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner’s brother while a partition suit was pending between them.

The Corporation defended its action, claiming that Section 321(1) allows for action to be taken even if the building is altered, that the repair carried out by the petitioner amounts to alteration of the building, that the installation of the rolling shutter also amounts to alteration of the building, that no sanction has been taken in relation to this, and that the action taken by the Corporation is proper, as correctly recognized by the KAT.