It is BBMP's job to decide on building violations: Civil court

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: A Civil Court in Bengaluru has refused to decide whether there was building violations and order for removing alleged deviations saying that it was the job of the BBMP and not the civil court.

Vidya Mujumdar, Dhananjaya Mujumdar and Malathi Mujumdar had approached the City Civil Court against their neighbours AS Ramesh and AR Sudhamani (Defendants 1 and 2) for alleged building violations. They had also made the BBMP and its officials party to the case.

It was the case of Mujumdars that their neighbours were constructing a multi-storied building next to their house without obtaining a no-objection certificate from the BBMP. A passage between the two properties has been allegedly encroached which has cut off light and ventilation to the Mujumdars.

It was also alleged that illegal projections of the new building encroached 3 feet of property belonging to the Mujumdars. The BBMP allegedly took no action against the illegal construction. The defendants claimed that the Mujumdars had filed the case only to harass them and they had obtained the sanction plan for the building and there was no violations.

The defendants alleged that it was the Mujumdars who had constructed shops and commercial establishments on their property. After considering the arguments of both the parties the Civil Court said that, “This court cannot grant the declaratory relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs. It is for the BBMP to decide whether there is any violation of building licence or not and it is for the BBMP to take proper action against defendants No.1 and 2 in accordance with KMC rules and regulations.”

The Mujumdars are residents of Gandhi Bazaar in Bengaluru. Their case came up before Judge BG Pramoda. The Court also refused to give an injunction to the construction. “The plaintiffs have also sought for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the deviations and to restore the construction to be in conformity with legal requirements and building plan, at the cost of defendants No.1 and 2. No such direction can be directed to defendants No.1 and 2. This court has no jurisdiction to direct BBMP to do so,” the court said dismissing the suit.

The court concluded that “I am of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable under law. In the absence of any sufficient oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of documents produced on behalf of the plaintiffs, this court cannot come to the specific conclusion that the defendants No.1 and 2 have violated building bye-laws and sanction plan issued by defendant No.3 and they have put up construction in the suit property by violating the approved plan and building license granted by defendant No.3.”