Merely because the provisional Revised Master Plan (RMP)-2031 for Bengaluru city was withdrawn by the State government, it would not negate all actions taken in pursuance of it, and the actions already taken as per the provisional RMP-2031 before withdrawal must be given due effect to, said the High Court of Karnataka.
Also, the court said the withdrawal of RMP-2031 would not make the earlier RMP-2015 applicable in place of the actions taken under the provisional RMP-2031.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made these observations while allowing a petition filed by Bhavani Yellappa Palyagar and Maarq Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru.
On grant of OC
The petitioners had questioned the legality of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike’s August 22, 2022, communication rejecting their application for grant of Occupancy Certificate (OC) on completion of construction of an apartment complex.
The court directed the BBMP to grant OC by May 31, 2023, to the apartment complex provided that the construction is as per the sanctioned plan and in adherence to other applicable rules.
The BBMP itself on January 19, 2018, approved building plan of the petitioners for construction of the apartment complex on a land measuring one acre and 24 guntas of land in Doddakannahalli Village, Varthur Hobli in Bengaluru South taluk. The plan was approved in terms of the provisional RMP-2031, which was notified by the State government on November 23, 2017.
Later, the BBMP on February 28, 2019, granted certificate to the petitioners for commencement of works after the petitioners secured no-objection certificates from the other statutory bodies.
The petitioners, on completion constructions, on May 26, 2022, applied for grant of OC after obtaining consent from the other statutory bodies. However, to their shock, the BBMP on August 22, 2022, refused to grant OC stating that the State government on June 20, 2022, had withdrawn the provisional RMP-2031.
The BBMP had told the petitioners that provisions of the RMP-2015 comes back into force following the withdrawal of provisional RMP-2031 by the government, and the construction of apartment complex put up by the petitioners as per BBMP approved plan, amounts to “encroachment” of lands proposed for an 18 m road in the earlier plan, that is RMP-2015.
Bad in law
Holding that BBMP’s decision not to grant OC is bad in law, the court said that the BBMP having allowed petitioners to put up construction by investing their monies cannot now deprive them of OC merely on account of the government withdrawing the provisional RMP-2031 when all the authorities had granted approvals on the basis of the RMP-2031.
The court also said that the provisional RMP-2031 was very much in force when the petitioners applied for grant of OC while noticing that there is no allegation against the petitioners that construction was put up illegally or without sanctioned plan or having deviated from the plan sanctioned.
