Bengaluru Residents’ Bid To Demolish Construction On Alleged Park Fails; Karnataka HC Finds Approved Layout Had Shifted Open Space, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

The appellants, residents of Arya Hamsa Apartments, alleged that construction on part of Sy. No. 28/3, Kothanur Village, was unauthorised because the land was designated as park/open space in the Revised Master Plan–2015.

After complaints to the authorities, they filed a writ petition seeking action against the construction.

The Single Judge disposed of the petition, directing BBMP to conclude proceedings under Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020.

In the appeal, the BDA stated that the residential layout had been approved and later modified, with the park/open space shifted from part of Sy. No. 28/3 to part of Sy. No. 30(P); it also produced records showing that the disputed sites had been formed and released under the approved layout.

The appellants challenged the Single Judge’s order and sought demolition of the completed construction.

Section 248 of the BBMP Act, 2020 provides the statutory procedure for action concerning unauthorised construction; the Single Judge directed BBMP to complete that procedure.

Regulation 3.16 of the Zonal Regulations, 2015 was relied upon in considering permissions granted before the Revised Master Plan–2015, which the Court held were to be considered in accordance with that regulation.

The Court also applied the principle that parties seeking relief must verify relevant records, exercise due diligence, and substantiate allegations with material; unsupported allegations and avoidable proceedings may warrant costs.

The Karnataka Parks, Playfields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985 and Article 21 were invoked by the appellants, but the Court did not separately determine their application.

The BDA’s records showed that the layout, including the disputed sites, had been approved and that the park/open-space allocation was shifted within the layout rather than deleted.

The sites were subsequently released, and the BDA’s records did not identify them as reserved for a park, playground, or open space.

On that evidence, the Court found that the appellants had not established their central allegation of encroachment on park/open space in Sy. No. 28/3.

The factual basis for the requested demolition was therefore unsupported, and there was no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s order.

The Court additionally found that the appellants had failed to verify the records adequately before making allegations, warranting costs.

The Court directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 toward costs with the Air Force Command Hospital and file proof of payment with the Registry within one month; the appeal was to be listed thereafter for further orders.

Pending applications were disposed of.