Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In these three Petitions also, the petitioners lament the unbridled growth of the City in a haphazard manner affecting the lives of the citizens of Bangalore. The petitioners who are all residents of a well planned layout called 'INDIRANAGAR', formed by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (CITB for short), whose successor is the second respondent, question the validity and legality of sanction of plans and issue of licences by the first respondent, in favour of the owners/builders for construction of multi-storey, multi-dwelling apartment buildings on sites, particulars of which are given hereunder:

5. Sri P.Vishwanath Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the essential utility services -road width, water connections, sanitary connections, electric supply etc., are provided to meet the requirements of "one dwelling house" on each site in the layout: so much so if multi-storey, multi-dwelling apartment buildings were to be permitted to be constructed on each site in the said layout, it would seriously jeopardise the living standards of the people living in the area as it would certainly affect the basic utility services and the civic amenities provided for the area at the time of formation of the layout. He submitted that the essential utility services cannot take extra load consequent upon increased number of families residing in the apartments and the inevitable increase in the vehicular traffic.

6. The petitioners have given certain particulars regarding the layout to emphasise that only 'one dwelling house' should be permitted to be constructed on each and every site comprised in the Indiranagar Extension. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Counsel that the petitioners having come to know that multi-storey, multi-dwelling apartment buildings are being put up on certain sites in Indiranagar have given representations to the Chief Minister and also the Minister for Urban Development, copies of which are produced as Annexures. They have also given representations to the Commissioners of the first respondent-Corporation and the second respondent Bangalore Development Authority (B.D.A. for short) protesting against permissions granted for construction of multi-storey, multi-dwelling apartment buildings. The petitioners assert that such permissions are illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in K.CHANDRASHEKAR HEGDE v. BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, , and affirmed in PEE KAY CONSTRUCTIONS v. CHANDRASEKHAR HEGDE, . The petitioners aver that they have also approached the Commissioners of the first respondent Corporation and the second respondent Development Authority and other officers requesting them to stop construction of the impugned buildings.

"i) The Corporation is not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites in the area in question to put up multi-storey/multi-family dwelling units;
ii) The scheme and both the CITB Act and the B.D.A. Act provide for the construction of residential houses by owners of the sites in question and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of multi-storey and multi-family apartments for commercial purpose, residential or non-residential;
iii) The scheme envisages that persons who are not allotted sites and who could not have been allotted sites would not be entitled in law to own apartments by taking advantage of the building licences which are not valid for construction of multi-family dwelling units on the sites in questions."