The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) council office.
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The high court has stated that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) does not have the power or authority to inquire into allegations of encroachment made by a party in a simple manner. Justice Suraj Govindaraj emphasised this point, adding that the BBMP's jurisdiction is limited to investigating whether the construction being carried out complies with the granted plan sanction, without reference to any specific encroachments on the property.
The petitioner, Emerald Haven Development Limited, a Chennai-based company, constructed 18 floors on four acres of land (excluding the basement) in Basapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South taluk, after obtaining plan sanction. On September 14, 2023, the Assistant Director of Town Planning (South) issued a notice based on a complaint, alleging that one acre of her land had been encroached upon by the petitioner. The notice required the petitioner to provide all necessary documents.
The company argued that they purchased the land in question in 2019 and carried out construction in compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority after obtaining a sanctioned plan from the BBMP. According to the petitioner, the complainant before the BBMP, was the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the previous owner and had also filed a lawsuit after construction commenced. The petitioner contended that the BBMP did not have the authority to adjudicate on the encroachment allegation and that such matters fell within the jurisdiction of the civil court.
On the other hand, the complainant claimed ownership of 3 acres and 30 guntas of land, asserting that there was an error in the renumbering of properties. She further alleged that false information had been provided regarding the identity, location, boundaries, and measurement of the property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj clarified that the BBMP is not a judicial authority empowered to conduct inquiries into disputed factual questions.
“Any aspect as regards the encroachment per se would not be an aspect which comes within the preview of BBMP. However, in the event of there being a violation of the plan sanction i.e., to say that there is a deviation therefrom and excess construction is carried out, irrespective of whether there is an encroachment or not in so far as the deviation from the plan, the BBMP would have jurisdiction,” the court said, while quashing the proceedings pending before the BBMP.