Building construction: DVS never abused his position, says SC

Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda on Friday got huge relief from the Supreme Court which said he never abused his position in construction of a building on a plot in Bengaluru.

The apex court set aside a 2012 Karnataka High Court judgment directing authorities to take back the plot. It also maintained that the High Court ought not to have entertained a PIL directed against Gowda and BJP MLA D N Jeevaraj as other remedies were available for the aggrieved person.

In its judgment, a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and S A Bobde said, “In spite of the clout that Gowda may have wielded in Karnataka, his actions relating to the construction of the building on his plot of land do not suggest any abuse”.

Though there were certain deviations in the construction of the plot, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike can take its care at the time of issuing occupancy certificate, the court added.

The court was critical of the HC for assuming the role of statutory authorities in issuing direction to the authorities to cancel the allotment without giving any reason.

Beyond jurisdiction
“This Court has repeatedly held that where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so....By taking over the functions of the Bangalore Development Authority in this regard, the High Court has given a complete go-bye to the procedural requirements and... acted beyond its jurisdiction,” the bench said. 

The HC had in 2012 acted on a PIL by one Nagalakshmi Bai, who claimed Gowda and Jeevaraj, allotted an adjacent 50x80 sq feet site in HSR Layout, constructed a commercial building by amalgamating the two sites and violating the building by-laws. 

Allowing appeal by Gowda and Jeevaraj, the BJP MLA from Sringeri in Chikkamagalur district, the apex court bench said that it failed to understand how the HC came to the conclusion on amalgamation of plots.

‘Not necessarily illegal’
“Merely because a building has some deviations from the sanctioned plan, either at the initial stage or later on in the construction, does not necessarily mean that the construction is per se illegal unless the deviations are irremediable, in which event an occupancy certificate or completion certificate will not be granted,” the bench said.

The court noted the writ petition before HC was filed when the construction was in progress and in fact, it is still not complete.

The owners could make changes until the grant of an occupancy certificate, the court said, rejecting the arguments that they carried out demolitions during the pendency of matter.

“It would be a bit far-fetched to assume, in a case such as the present, that an incomplete structure that can be modified is per se contrary to the building bye-laws or the lease-cum-sale agreement especially when changes or modifications could be made therein,” the bench said.