Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Court

1. In all these writ petitions, the facts and the grounds urged and the respondents are common. Therefore, this Court is passing this common order.

2. In all these petitions, petitioners are all the owners of their respective properties and have constructed both residential and non-residential buildings within the limits of Corporation of Bangalore City. It is alleged by the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore that the petitioners have violated the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the KMC Act'), building bye-laws particularly Clauses 5.1 and 6.1 in constructing their respective buildings in contravention of the sanctioned plan, deviated from the same and constructed the buildings beyond the limits of regularisation of the unauthorised portions of the buildings in law. Therefore, it is stated that proceedings were initiated against each one of the petitioners by the delegated authorities under Section 321(1) of the Act and passed the provisional orders specifying the portions of the deviations made by each one of the petitioners in their respective buildings. The said orders by the Corporation have been duly served upon the petitioners by issuing notices under Section 321(2) of the Act after considering the objection statement of the petitioners, the different competent delegated authorities of the Commissioner have passed confirmation orders in exercise of their power under the provisions of Section 321(3) of the Act specifically mentioning the percentage of deviations of the constructions of the buildings by them, which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, building bye-laws, sanctioned plan and the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.

3. The petitioners have been called upon by the competent delegated authorities of the Corporation to remove the respective portions of the unauthorised construction of the buildings within the specified time mentioned in the confirmation orders served upon them, otherwise, the Corporation would take necessary steps for removing the unauthorised construction made by the petitioners in their respective buildings as mentioned in the confirmation orders served upon them.

4. Aggrieved of the orders passed under Section 321(3) by the different delegated authorities under the provisions of the Act, petitioners filed appeals before the Standing Committee Appeals, under the provisions of Section 444 of the KMC Act. The Standing Committee Appeals in all these matters after hearing the petitioners recorded its findings in unequivocal terms stating that there is deviation of the sanctioned plans in the construction of the buildings made by them as they have contravened the Building Bye-laws. However the Appellate Authority has given a direction to the Corporation to regularise the unauthorised construction of the buildings on humanitarian grounds by imposing appropriate penalty on them and issue modified sanctioned plans under the provisions of the Act and building bye-laws in favour of the petitioners in conformity with the deviations made by each one of them in respect of their buildings in question.

22. Having answered the point formulated by this Court whether the Government has got power in exercise of its power under Section 98 of the Act to examine the orders passed by the Standing Committee Appeals in favour of the respondents, now this Court has to examine whether the order passed under Section 98(3) of the Act in conformity with the provisions of Section 98(3) read with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi's case, supra. It is necessary to examine whether the order that was passed under Section 98(3) will have serious civil consequences upon the rights of the owners who have constructed the buildings and who had filed appeals which came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority by setting aside the orders passed by delegated authorities of the Corporation under sub-section (3) of Section 321. Those orders can be judicially reviewed by the State Government either at the instance of the Commissioner as he has forwarded those orders on the ground that there are deviations of the sanctioned plans, Building Bye-laws by the petitioners beyond compoundable limits or in its motion. Therefore, the rights accrued in favour of the petitioners in pursuant to the orders passed in their appeals by the Standing Committee Appeal are deprived by the first respondent as the same is passed by it without hearing them. Though sub-section (3) of Section 98 does not contemplate that the right of hearing to be given to the interested persons, namely the petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in Smt. Maneka Gandhi's case, supra, wherein the Supreme Court has interpreted Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and further with regard to the provisions of Passports Act, 1967, at paragraph 57 it has been held as hereunder:

28. The above observations are made by this Court having regard to the fact that number of such cases of unauthorised construction of buildings have been coming up in the Corporation limits of Bangalore City in deviating the sanctioned plans and Building Bye-laws, the writ petitions are filed before this Court and the cases are remitted back for non-consideration of the cases of the parties and the orders of the Standing Committee Appeals, are not in conformity with the provisions of the Act.