Authorities Must Assess Setback Violations for Possible Regularisation Under Section 249

The complainant initiated civil contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court’s order dated 25 April 2025 in R.P. No. 109/2025.

That review petition had been dismissed after the Supreme Court had also dismissed the special leave petition challenging the earlier proceedings concerning unauthorised construction.

In the contempt proceedings, the Assistant Engineer filed an affidavit stating that the unauthorised fourth floor had been demolished, but construction within the setback area remained because its removal was said to risk structural instability and public safety.

The affidavit also stated that a setback deviation of 11.70% had been recorded.

Whether the accused had wilfully disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 25 April 2025.

Whether the remaining setback deviation required further action by the authorities, including consideration under Section 249 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024.

The petition was brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also referred to Section 249(1)(a) of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, which the accused’s counsel relied on in submitting that certain deviations in residential buildings may be regularised; the Court left the application of that provision to the competent authorities.

The Court considered the compliance affidavit, which reported demolition of the unauthorised fourth floor and attributed the remaining setback violation to asserted structural and safety risks.

It also noted the reported 11.70% deviation and counsel’s submission concerning possible regularisation under Section 249.

Rather than determine whether the remaining construction was regularisable or make an express finding on wilful disobedience, the Court left the matter for the authorities to consider and take appropriate steps under the Act.

It made that observation and consigned the contempt petition; it did not expressly find the accused guilty of contempt or direct that the setback deviation be regularised.