Karnataka High Court
Sri Vineeth Nari vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454
WP No. 18838 of 2024
C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18838 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)
IN W.P.No. 18838 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
SRI VINEETH NARI
S/O SHREEDHAM NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 4172,
SOBHA SILICON OASIS,
DODANAGAMANGALA ROAD,
OFF HOSA ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PO,
DODDANAGAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560100.
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by
KIRAN (BY SRI. G S KANNUR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
KUMAR R
Location:
SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C,ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
9TH AND 10TH FLOOR,
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEETHI,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALOREMAHANAGARA PALIKE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454
WP No. 18838 of 2024
C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BAGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560020.
(RESPONDENT NO. 3 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
18.07.2024) ...RESPONDENTS (BYSMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K B MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING OR DECLARING SECTION 14.3 OF THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND VOID. VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 1047 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
M/S FELICITY ADOBE LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUMKUR NIVAS LLP) A LLP INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPACT, 2008, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT B-0710, 7TH FLOOR, EAST TOWER B, SIGNATURE TOWERS, BRIGADE GOLDEN TRIANGLE, SY NO.50, HUSKUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560 049. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRANAV SHARMA ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. G S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C., ADVOCATE) -3- NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, DR BR AMBEDKAR VEETHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARAPALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALIGN THE BMP BYE LAWS WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1976 AND THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVISED MASTER PLAN 2015, PARTICULARLY CONCERNING BALCONY PROJECTIONS.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA -4- NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 CAV ORDER
1. W.P. No.1047/2025 is by a Limited Liability Partnership which is seeking for a direction to the respondents to align the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'BBMP Bye-Laws' for short) and with the principles of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act) and the Bangalore Development Authority Revised Master Plan, 2015, (RMP) particularly in relation to the balcony projections.
2. W.P. No.18838/2024 is by a Structural Engineer, who is registered in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') under the Building Bye-laws and is stated to have possessed a license as a Structural Engineer. He is also seeking for a direction in the same manner as has been sought for by the other petitioner.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
3. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner in W.P. No.18838/2024 had also initially sought for declaring Byelaw 14.3 of BBMP Bye-Laws as ultra vires, but by the submission dated 18.07.2024, it was stated that he was not pressing for this prayer. Thus, the question to be considered in these petitions are only in relation to the prayer relating to alignment of the BBMP Bye-Laws in accordance with the provisions of the KMC Act as well as the RMP, 2015.
4. The grievance of the petitioners revolves around the provision made in respect of a balcony vis-à-vis the apparent conflict between the BBMP Bye-Laws and the Zonal Regulations (framed Revised Master Plan Zoning of Landuse and Regulations under the RMP, 2015).
5. To appreciate the context of the arguments and determine the questions raised by the petitioners, it would be essential to examine the provisions of the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 BBMP Act, the Building Bye Laws and also the KTCP Act and the RMP and the Zonal Regulations framed under it.
6. The BBMP was a Corporation constituted under the KMC Act, until the enactment of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in 2020. The BBMP under Chapter XV of the KMC Act provided for Regulation of buildings and Section 2951 conferred 1
295. Building bye-laws.- (1) With the approval of the Government the corporation may make bye-laws,-
(a) for the regulation or restriction of the use of sites or buildings, and
(b) for the regulation or restriction of building. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by clause
(b) of sub-section (1), bye-laws made under that clause may provide,-
(a) that no insanitary or dangerous site shall be used for building, and
(b) for the regulation or restriction of the construction of buildings intended for public worship on sites.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by clause
(a) of sub-section (1), bye-laws made under that clause may provide for the following matters:-
(a) information and plans to be submitted together with applications for permission to build;
(b) height of buildings, whether absolute or relative to the width of streets;
(c) level and width of foundation, level of lowest floor and stability of structure;
(d) number and height of storeys composing a building and height of rooms;
(e) provision of sufficient open space, external or internal, and adequate means of ventilation;
(f) provision of means of egress in case of fire;
(g) provision of secondary means of access for the removal of house refuse;
(h) materials and methods of construction of external and party walls, roofs, and floors;
(i) position, materials and methods of construction of hearths, smoke escapes, chimneys, staircases, privies, drains, cesspools;
(j) paving of yards;
(k) restrictions on the use of inflammable materials in buildings;-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 the power on the BBMP to make Bye-Laws, with the approval of the Government.
7. Section 295(3) of the Act has also conferred power on it to require an applicant to provide for the details to be submitted along with the application for permission to build, such as the height of the buildings, level and width of the foundation, level of the lowest floor and stability of structure, and the number and height of storeys etc.
8. Section 294(5) declared that no piece of land should be used as a site for the construction of a building and no building should be constructed or reconstructed except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of any Rules or Bye-Laws
(l) in the case of wells, dimensions of the well, the manner of enclosing it and if the well if the well is intended for drinking purposes, the means which shall be used to prevent pollution of water.
(4) Every bye-law made under sub-section (1) relating to grant of licence for the construction or reconstruction of a building shall provide that planting of trees and plants in the premises shall be a condition of every licence granted for the construction or reconstruction of any such building. (5) No piece of land shall be used as a site for the construction of a buildings, and no building shall be constructed or reconstructed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any rules or bye-laws made thereunder relating to the use of building sites or the construction or re-construction of buildings. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 made thereunder. Thus, Section 295 of the KMC Act provided for framing of Bye-Laws by a Corporation in relation to the construction of a building.
9. The BBMP in exercise of its power conferred under Section 295 framed the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, 2003 and this was also approved by the Government on 21.02.2004. The Bye-Laws were also published, as required under Section 428 of the KMC Act.
10. As far as this case is concerned, only the following Bye-Laws would be relevant.
11. Bye-Law 2.8 defines a 'balcony' to mean a horizontal cantilever projection including a handrail or balustrade, to serve as passage or sit out place.
12. Byelaw 2.33 defines the 'floor area ratio' to mean that it was the quotient obtained by dividing the total covered area of all floors by the area of the plot. The Floor area includes the mezzanine floor also. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
13. Regulation Bye-law 9.10 provided for Limitations of floor area and covered area.
14. Byelaw 9.10.3, which would be relevant for this case reads as follows-
"9.10.3 (a) The floor area of a building shall be the aggregate area of the floors of all parts of the building including thickness of walls, parting area, staircase rooms, lift rooms, ramps, escalators, machine rooms, balconies, ducts including sanitary ducts, water tanks, lobbies, corridors, foyers and such other parts provided for common service.
(b) The floor area ratio shall exempt the floor area used for the following purposes, namely:-
(i) parking space (ii) staircase rooms (iii) lift rooms (iv) ramps (v)escalators
(vi)machine rooms (vii) open balconies
(viii) ducts including sanitary ducts and (ix) water tanks.
(c) Parking area shall be exempted to the extent required for the building.
(d) The area covered by the following structures on the roof are exempted from the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 floor area upto fifteen percent of the area of the roof over which they are erected, namely:-
(i) staircase rooms (ii)lift machine rooms
(iii) pent house (iv) water tanks (v) equipments for ventilation, air conditioning and similar services.
(e) Lobbies, corridors provided in the plan shall be considered for F.A.R.
(f) The nomenclature of certain roads may differ with those mentioned in the District Maps of the Revised C.D.P. in such cases, the location of the site may be considered to determine the land use."
15. As could be seen from the above, 9.10.3(b)(vii), the floor area ratio exempts the floor area used for open balconies. Thus, an open balcony constructed in a building would not be taken into consideration for computing the floor area ratio.
16. Bye-law 14 provided for exemptions in open space.
14.3 which relates to 'balcony' reads as follows-
"Balcony - The projection of the balcony shall be measured perpendicular to the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 building upto the outermost edge of the balcony. Cantilever projection of the balcony shall be permitted not exceeding 1/3 of the setback subject to a maximum of 1.1 mtrs. in the first floor and 1.75 metres in and above the second floor. No balcony is allowed at the ground floor level. The length of the balcony shall be limited to 1/3 of the length of each side of the building."
17. As could be seen from the above, the cantilever projection of the balcony was to be permitted to an extent of 1/3rd of the set back subject to a maximum of 1.1 mtrs. in the first floor and 1.75 mtrs. in and above the second floor and the petitioners have no grievance of this.
18. They are, however, aggrieved by Bye-law 14.3, which indicates that the length of the balcony should be limited to 1/3rd of the length of each side of the building.
19. Thus, under the BBMP Bye laws, for a plan to be approved, the requirement is that the length of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 balcony should not exceed 1/3rd the length of the building and a balcony would be excluded for calculating the FAR.
20. After the BBMP Bye-Laws were published and approved, on 21.02.2004, about three and a half years to be precise, a Master Plan was approved by the Government, as required under Section 13 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act) on 22.06.2007.
21. As required under Section 12, a Revised Master Plan was published in 2007, which contained a series of maps and Volume III of the RMP, 2015 provided for Zoning of land use and Regulations.
22. Regulation Bye-law 1.1 of the Zoning Regulations declared that it would apply to the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, which was also defined a Local Planning Area (LPA) for the city of Bangalore and its
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 environs. Bye-Law 1 of the Zoning Regulations reads as follows-
"1.1 Spatial extent of land use zoning regulations:
The regulation applies to the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, also defined as the Local Planning Area (LPA) for the city of Bangalore and its environs as declared under KTCP Act, 1961.
The provisions of this document are to be read along with the relevant planning district plans of Revised Master Plan 2015, applicable to various areas of the city. The zone delineation and the permissible land uses within zone and respective regulations for land use are properly co-related to achieve orderly growth.
The regulations proposed are prospective. The developments that are lawfully established prior to the coming into force of zonal regulations shall be allowed to continue as non-confirming uses."
23. As could be seen from the above, the Zoning Regulations would apply to the Planning area and the Zoning Regulations should be read along with relevant planning district plans of RMP, 2015 which would be applicable to various areas of the City, and more importantly, the Regulations would be prospective.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
24. Regulation 3.4 of RMP, 2015 dealt with FAR and the same reads as follows-
"3.4) FAR or Floor Area Ratio
i) The ratio of the Floor area to the plot area is FAR. However, it includes escalators, open balconies, staircase and corridors.
ii) The floor area ratio shall exempt the floor area used for purposes such as parking space, main stair case room, lift shaft, lift wells, and lift machine rooms, ramps, ventilation ducts, sanitary ducts and overhead tanks.
iii) When the site does not face the road of required width noted against each, then the FAR applicable to the corresponding width of the roads shall apply.
iv) Where a plot faces a wider road than the one prescribed against it, the FAR shall be restricted only to the limit prescribed for the area of the plot.
v) Additional FAR : With a view to encourage redevelopment in old/core areas, additional floor area ratio (FAR) as an incentive is proposed for properties located within 1 and 11 rings (land falling under 100 & 200 series planning district plans) which are amalgamated or reconstituted only after the date of approval of Revised Master Plan 2015. Details of additional FAR are as follows :
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454
WP No. 18838 of 2024
C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
Upto 360 sq.m. Above 360 sq.m Above 4000 sq.m
upto 4000 sq.m
Ring .1 As per existing FAR 0.25 additional 0.50 Additional
FAR over the FAR over the
existing existing.
Ring .2 As per existing FAR 0.25 Additional
FAR over the
existing.
Ring .3 As per existing FAR and Norms
25. As could be seen from 3.4(ii), the Zonal Regulations, in contrast to the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, does not exempt the floor area for open balconies while calculating the floor area ratio.
26. In other words, though the BBMP Bye-Laws exempted open balconies from being considered for the purpose of calculating the FAR, the Zonal Regulations of RMP 2015 included the floor area used for open balconies also for calculating the floor ratio.
Thus, under the Zonal Regulations, if a person were
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 to construct an open balcony, he could not claim an exemption on that floor area from the FAR.
27. Regulation 3.11 dealt with 'Projections' and the same reads as follows-
"3.11 Projections :
i. Projection into open spaces : Every open space provided either interior or exterior shall be kept free from any erection there on and shall be open to the sky and no comice roof or weather shade more than 0.75 m wide or 1/3rdof open space / setback which ever is less shall overhand or project over the said open space.
ii. No projection shall over hand / project over the minimum setback area either in cellar floor or at the lower level of ground floor.
iii. Cantilever Portico of 3.0 m width (maximum) and 4.50m length (maximum) may be permitted within the side setback. No access is permitted to the top of the portico to use it as a sit out place and the height of the portico shall be not less than 2.00 m from the plinth level. The portico is allowed only on the side where the setback / open space left exceeds 3.00m width.
iv. Balcony : Balcony projection shall not exceed 1/3rd of the setback on that side subject to a maximum of 1.10m in the first floor and
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 1.75m beyond the second floor. No balcony is allowed in the ground floor."
28. As could be seen from 3.11(iv), the Zonal Regulations, must as the BBMP Building Bye-Laws also stated that the balcony projection should not exceed 1/3 of the set back on that side and also stipulated maximum 1.10 mtrs. in the first floor and 1.75 mtrs. beyond the second floor. However, significantly, the Regulations did not limit the length of the balcony to 1/3, the length of the building.For easy reference, the Regulation 14.3 and 3.11 are tabulated as under -
Regulation 14.3 : Regulation 3.11 :
Balcony - The projection of 3.11 Projections :
the balcony shall be
measured perpendicular to i. Projection into open
the building upto the spaces : Every open space
outermost edge of the provided either interior or
balcony. Cantilever exterior shall be kept free
projection of the balcony
from any erection there on
shall be permitted not
and shall be open to the sky
exceeding 1/3 of the
setback subject to a and no comice roof or
maximum of 1.1 mtrs. in weather shade more than
the first floor and 1.75 0.75 m wide or 1/3rdof open
metres in and above the space / setback which ever
second floor. No balcony is is less shall overhand or
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454
WP No. 18838 of 2024
C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
allowed at the ground floor project over the said open level. The length of the space.
balcony shall be limited to 1/3 of the length of each i. No projection shall side of the building." over hand / project over the minimum setback area either in cellar floor or at the lower level of ground floor.
ii. Cantilever Portico of 3.0 m width (maximum) and 4.50m length (maximum) may be permitted within the side setback. No access is permitted to the top of the portico to use it as a sit out place and the height of the portico shall be not less than 2.00 m from the plinth level. The portico is allowed only on the side where the setback / open space left exceeds 3.00m width.
Balcony : Balcony projection shall not exceed 1/3rd of the setback on that side subject to a maximum of 1.10m in the first floor and 1.75m beyond the second floor. No balcony is allowed in the ground floor."
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
29. It is, thus, clear that under the BBMP Bye-Laws, the length of the balcony was required to be limited to 1/3rd the length of each side of the building while under the Zonal Regulations of RMP 2015, there was no such stipulation, and thus, there was no limitation regarding the length of the balcony and a balcony could run through the entire length of the building.
30. It may be pertinent to state here that the restriction of the length of the balcony under the BBMP Bye-
Laws was obviously because the open balcony was not calculated for the purpose of floor area ratio, and therefore, a restriction was made so that the exemption could not be used as a means of having balconies through out the length of the building.
31. However, since the Zonal Regulations brought the floor area used for balcony into the FAR, the Rule maker removed the restriction regarding its length and gave complete liberty to the builder to have a balcony without any stipulation regarding its length.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 The effect of this was under the Zonal Regulations, a person could have a balcony of any length without any restrictions. If a person chose to have a balcony without any limitation to its length, it is obvious that his FAR would be the effected by the floor area used for the entire length of the balcony.
32. The dispute in this case, as argued by learned Senior Counsel, is that the BBMP insists on adherence to BBMP Building Bye-Law 14.3 (which restricts the length of the balcony to the 1/3 of the length of each side of the balcony). According to him, the Zonal Regulations which have been framed under the provisions of the KTCP Act will have to apply even if there are building Bye-Laws framed under the provisions of the BBMP Act and thus there can be no limitation regarding the length of the balcony.
33. He submits that there is an obvious contradiction between the BBMP Bye-Laws and the Zonal Regulations and having regard to the over-riding
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 nature of the provisions of the KTCP Act and the Regulations prayed thereunder, it is the Zonal Regulations which will have to prevail and not the Bye-Laws especially when there is a conflict between a Bye-Law and a Zonal Regulation.
34. It may be pertinent to state here that when the BBMP Act was enacted in the year 2020, it did not have a provision similar to Section 505 of the KMC Act2.
35. Under the provisions of the KMC Act, Section 505 mandated that in exercise of power by the Corporation, it would have to be in conformity with the provisions of the KTCP Act, thereby meaning that 2
505. Exercise of powers by a corporation to be in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a corporation or any officer or other authority required by or under this Act to exercise any power, or perform any function or discharge any duty,-
(i) with regard to any matter relating to land use or development as defined in the Explanation to section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall exercise such power, or perform such function or discharge such duty with regard to such land use or development plan or where there is no development plan, with the concurrence of the Planning Authority;
(ii) shall not grant any permission, approval or sanction required by or under this Act to any person if it relates to any matter in respect of which compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is necessary unless evidence in support of having complied with the provisions of the said Act is produced by such person to the satisfaction of the corporation or the officer or other authority, as the case may be.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 in the matter relating to land use or development, the Corporation was required to perform its functions and discharge its duties in accordance with the development plan or land use or when there is no development plan with the concurrence of the Planning Authority. Section 505 (2) also forbids the Corporation of granting any approval or sanction if it related to any manner which required the compliance of the provisions of the KTCP Act.
36. It is, therefore, clear that by virtue of Section 505, the erstwhile BBMP was required to act in conformity with the provisions of the KTCP Act and the Regulations made thereunder.
37. In the year 2024, i.e., by Act No.17/2024, Section 249A was inserted into the BBMP Act which was a verbatim reproduction of the earlier Section 505, which reads as follows -
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 "249A. Exercise of powers by a corporation to be in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a corporation or any officer or other authority required by or under this Act to exercise any power, or perform any function or discharge any duty,-
(i) with regard to any matter relating to land use or development as defined in the Explanation to section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall exercise such power, or perform such function or discharge such duty with regard to such land use or development plan or where there is no development plan, with the concurrence of the Planning Authority;
(ii) shall not grant any permission, approval or sanction required by or under this Act to any person if it relates to any matter in respect of which compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 is necessary unless evidence in support of having complied with the provisions of the said Act is produced by such person to the satisfaction of the corporation or the officer or other authority, as the case may be."
38. It is, therefore, clear that by virtue of Section 249A, the statute mandates that the officers of the BBMP
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 are required to abide by the provisions of the KTCP Act and as a consequence, the Regulations framed therein.
39. At this stage, a reference to Section 76M of KTCP Act would also be necessary. Section 76M of the KTCP Act reads as follows-
"76M. Effect of other Laws.--(1) Save as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law,-
(a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained;
(b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission,
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025 approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained."
40. As could be seen from the above, the provisions of the KTCP Act, the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder would have an effect notwithstanding anything which is inconsistent with them in any other law.
41. It is, therefore, clear that the Regulations that have been framed under the KTCP Act would have effect even if there was a Bye-law contrary to the Regulation under the Bye-Laws published by the BBMP. Thus, the cumulative effect of Section 76M and Section 249 of the BBMP Act is that the provisions of the KTCP Act would prevail in the matter of land use and development and consequently the Regulations framed under the KTCP Act would prevail over the Building Bye-Laws framed by the BBMP.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
42. It may also be pertinent to state here that the KTCP Act contemplates that preparation of a master plan which is ultimately designed for orderly development, and the Act envisages providing for a detailed manner in which a planning area is required to be developed and the development within a planning area to be regulated. It is, therefore, obvious that the Regulations made under the KTCP Act would prevail over the Building Bye-Laws which, in essence, mirror the Regulations and are framed so as to be in conformity with the Zonal Regulations.
43. It is to be stated here that the provisions of the Building Bye-Laws framed by the BBMP cannot obviously be contrary to the Zonal Regulations. However, when there is any conflict between the building Bye-law and the Zonal Regulations, it is obvious that by virtue of Section 76M of the KTCP Act and Section 249A of the BBMP Act, it is the Zonal Regulations of RMP 2015 which would prevail.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
44. In this view of the matter, it is clear that Regulation 3.11 of the Zonal Regulations of RMP 2015 framed under the provisions of KTCP Act would prevail in relation to a balcony. Thus, the BBMP would be required to permit the construction of a balcony in accordance with 3.11(iv). As a further consequence, the BBMP cannot limit the length of the balcony as it could have done under Regulation 14.3 of the BBMP Building Bye-Laws.
45. It is, however, made clear that the floor area of the balcony that is so constructed, by virtue of the Zonal Regulations,would be taken into consideration while calculating the FAR.
46. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of holding that the provisions of Regulation 3.11 of the Zonal Regulations of RMP 2015 would prevail in relation to construction of a balcony and there can be no limitation to the length of the balcony.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10454 WP No. 18838 of 2024 C/W WP No. 1047 of 2025
47. The floor area of the balcony shall, however, be taken into consideration while calculating the FAR and the builders cannot claim exemption in respect of this area of the balcony from the FAR, as provided under the Building Bye-Laws, 2003.
48. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86