The Karnataka High Court has determined that the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, do not impose a universal prohibition on approving construction plans for plots smaller than 50 square meters.

Instead, the approval for such construction plans on private lands measuring less than 50 square meters must be evaluated and granted in accordance with established legal principles, prioritizing the welfare of the citizens, as emphasized by the court.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Considering the value of land in a city like Bangalore even purchase of a plot less than 50 sq. mtrs. is a dream for many people, and they would have bought such a property by investing their hard-earned money probably their life savings and even in some cases by obtaining financial accommodation from not only banks but from private lenders.”

The court further emphasized its stance, stating, "I am of the considered opinion that unless there is evidence of malicious intent or unless the utilization of such a plot poses a substantial threat of harm to town planning or services provided by any governmental agency, the relevant authorities should evaluate requests from plot owners positively and in a manner that benefits the individuals involved."

The court made this observation during the hearing of several petitions. Some petitioners argued that private respondents had engaged in illegal and unauthorized construction without obtaining plan sanction, thereby violating the Bye-Laws. Meanwhile, other petitioners faced actions taken by the Corporation for similarly engaging in unauthorized construction without obtaining the required plan sanction.

The court highlighted that if sites designated for housing schemes targeting economically weaker sections (EWS), low-income groups (LIG), slum clearance and improvement, as well as reconstruction in densely populated areas, can be smaller than 50 square meters, there is no apparent justification for not applying the same principle to private individuals' sites. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the state to establish and communicate the essential guidelines for the relevant officers to apply in such situations.

The court acknowledged that both petitioners and/or respondents involved in the case had already undertaken construction without obtaining a plan sanction. However, the court expressed that an immediate demolition of these constructions would not serve the interest of justice.

Concluding the proceedings, the court directed the disposal of the petitions and ordered the matter to be re-listed on 29.01.2024. This re-listing is intended to provide an opportunity for the Principal Secretary to present the formulated guidelines regarding plots measuring 50 square meters or less.

Case Title: Nagaraj AND The Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others