The former Chief Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda and Food and Civil Supplies Minister D.N. Jeevaraj are set to lose their sites as the Karnataka High Court on Friday directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to take action against them within three months for violating the terms and conditions of allotment of sites.
The court also quashed the building plans sanctioned by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) favouring them.
Provisions of agreement
The provisions of agreement and the rules enable the BDA to cancel the allotment for violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment by issuing a prior notice to the allottees, besides forfeiture of 12.5 per cent from the deposit amount.
Moreover, the declaration signed by the allottees empowers the BDA to take back the site without paying any compensation for both the site as well as for any structure constructed on it.
A Division Bench comprising Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar and Justice H.S. Kempanna passed the order on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by K.G. Nagalaxmi Bai alleging that Mr. Gowda and Mr. Jeevaraj constructed structures in violation of the law on adjacent sites allotted to them at HSR Layout in the city.
‘Violation of plans’
The Bench noticed that though the BDA had rejected their request for amalgamation of their sites, Mr. Gowda and Mr. Jeevaraj had gone ahead and constructed a three-storey homogeneous structure in violation of the plans sanctioned by the BBMP in their respective sites.
After filing of the PIL in August 2011, the BBMP in October 2011 approved the modified plan for five floors having about five dwelling units, citing that such a plan was permissible as per the revised zonal regulations, the Bench said, while observing these actions were attempts to sustain the initial infraction in construction.
Not more than one unit
The Bench pointed out that as per Condition No. 4 of sale-cum-terms of agreement, the allottees can neither subdivide the site nor construct a structure having more than one dwelling unit. Though the BBMP might not be aware of these terms and conditions at the time of approving the plans, the allottees were fully aware.
The Bench also noted that authorities, who were expected to take corrective action in such an instance, perhaps didn’t given the antecedents of the allottees.
