Defence Colony Residents’ Challenge To Neighbour’s Construction Disposed; Karnataka HC Leaves Corporation Free To Act On Further Deviations

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court should direct immediate action against the fifth respondent’s alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan and alleged encroachment, in light of the authorities’ inspection report and the fifth respondent’s account of the canopy.

The court held

The petition was disposed of without further orders.

It also directed

The disposal was expressly without prejudice to the authorities’ power to initiate inspection and action under Section 243 of the GBG Act if they found any deviation beyond what had been reported to the Court.

The Court did not order demolition, direct consideration of the representations, or decide the petitioners’ locus.

01Facts

The petitioners, a residents’ association and local residents, alleged that the fifth respondent’s construction in Defence Colony deviated from the sanctioned plan and encroached on the public road and footpath.

p. 5

They sought action on their representations and removal of the alleged unauthorised construction and encroachments.

p. 5

During the proceedings, the authorities reported that the deviation was confined to a setback on one side and was below 5%; they also referred to a notification under which certain setback deviations could be compounded subject to specified limits.

p. 6

The fifth respondent stated that the deviation related to a front canopy and that part of it had been removed, bringing its edge within three feet of the property line.

pp. 7–8

The authorities submitted that further construction might have occurred after their inspection and that proceedings under Section 243 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (“GBG Act”) should remain open.

p. 8

The Court noted that the fifth respondent had a sanctioned plan and that the authorities had not issued a notice.

p. 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court should direct immediate action against the fifth respondent’s alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan and alleged encroachment, in light of the authorities’ inspection report and the fifth respondent’s account of the canopy.

pp. 5–8

ii.2. Whether disposal of the petition should preclude the authorities from inspecting the property and taking action under Section 243 of the GBG Act if further or other deviations are found.

pp. 8–9

03Law Applied

Section 243 of the GBG Act provides the statutory basis for the authorities to inspect and take action where a building is found to deviate from its sanctioned plan, following the contemplated process, including an opportunity to the affected party.

p. 9

A person holding a sanctioned plan must construct in accordance with it.

p. 9

The Court also referred to the authorities’ account of a notification dated 14 May 2026 concerning the potential compounding of specified setback deviations, subject to stated limits; it did not itself determine whether the reported deviation qualified for compounding.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 Section 243

04Reasoning

The Court declined to make further orders on the immediate dispute because the authorities had inspected the property and reported a setback deviation below 5%, while the fifth respondent stated that part of the canopy had been removed.

pp. 9–10

Those circumstances did not, however, resolve whether further construction or other deviations existed.

pp. 9–10

Since the fifth respondent remained obliged to comply with the sanctioned plan, the authorities retained jurisdiction to inspect and, if warranted, commence proceedings under Section 243 of the GBG Act.

p. 9

The Court did not decide the petitioners’ locus, observing that the issue could be considered in an appropriate case.

pp. 10–11