Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is also relevant to state that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the question as to whether the Zoning Regulations had been properly promulgated or not in respect of which some doubt had been created, was cleared by this. Court in the case of M. D. Narayana v. State & anr., 1982 (2) KLJ Sh. N. 35 (D.D. 11-6-1982) In the said Judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Zoning Regulations had been properly promulgated and in view of Section 505, of the Corporation Act, obedience to Zoning Regulations was mandatory and the Corporation or any of its authorities had no authority to grant any licence or permission in contravention of the Zoning Regulations. Relevant part of the Judgment reads :

17. Now, coming to the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Country and Town Planning Act. Section 13(3) of (he Town Planning Act, provides for the publication of the Outline Development Plan, including Zoning Regulations. Section 14 provides that every land in the area covered by O.D P. must conform to the Zoning Regulations. These Regulations are to be in force until a Comprehensive Development Plan is prepared and published. They have also been published during the pendency of this petition. The conditions prescribed thereunder are more rigorous. However, as far as this case is concerned, the Zoning Regulation has to be applied, as at the time when the petitioner is said to have secured deemed licence for construction of the building the Zoning Regulations were in force. Whether the non-taking of a commencement certificate under Section 14 of the Planning Act is fatal or not to the construction, there can be no doubt that in view of M. D. Narayana's case, 1982 (2) KLJ Sh. N. 35 any construction of a building in contravention of the provisions of the Zoning Regulations is unlawful and cannot be allowed to stand.

It is significant to note that what respondent-3 staled was that on the date when the show cause notice was issued as also the date on which he was replying, he had not made any construction in violation of the Zoning Regulations. The objection raised by the Corporation was that even on the basis that the renewal of the license applied for by respondent-3 was deemed to have been granted, he had no authority to construct any building in contravention of the Zoning Regulations. Learned Counsel for respondent-3 could not and did not dispute that the provisions contained in Section 302(2) of the Corporation Act to the effect that license for construction of a building applied for, if not rejected within the specified time, should be deemed to have been granted, did not have the effect of permitting construction in contravention of the Planning Actor the Zoning Regulations framed thereunder or in violation of the building bye-laws, for, the very sub-section expressly provides that the applicant may proceed to execute the work without contravening the provisions of the Act or Rules or bye-laws made under the Act. Therefore, in view of Section 505 of the Act, even in a case where there is deemed license, a party can make construction only in conformity with the Zoning Regulations promulgated under the Town Planning Act. The citizens are as much bound by law as the authorities are. Therefore, when the attention of the third respondent was brought to the provisions of the Zoning Regulations, he should have given a reply stating the reasons as to how the construction was in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, he made a bold denial that the license granted by the Commissioner was not in violation of the Zoning Regulations and further said that the construction made by him till then was not violative of the Zoning Regulations which implied that subsequent construction might come into conflict with the Zoning Regulations.

After going through your reply cited at Sl. No. 2 above, you are permitted to proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

Sd/-

COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY CORPORATION."

The Petitioner contends that this order is patently illegal and not bona fide as it was made without recording a statement that the plan was not violative of Zoning Regulations.

19. Sri K.R.D. Karanth, Learned Counsel for respondent-3, however, submitted that in the Zoning Regulations printed and published by the Corporation, in the table regarding floor area ratio, height of the building etc., which are part of the Zoning Regulations, in respect of residential buildings, the words 'less than' had been printed as against the column regarding minimum width of the road, but the same had not been printed in respect of the tables regarding non-residential buildings and if those words were also there in the table concerning non-residential buildings, respondent No. 3 had not violated the Rules either regarding number of floors or regarding the height of the building. The two tables concerning the residential and non-residential buildings read :