High Court Directs Karnataka Chief Secretary To Constitute High-Level Committee For Constant Monitoring Of Storm Water Drains In Bangalore

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to constitute a Committee comprising of officers such as the Chief Commissioner of the BBMP along with other Stakeholders like the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Principal Secretary, Gram Panchayat, for constant monitoring of storm water drains, more particularly in the rainy season, them from being blocked. 

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said “This aspect being a perennial problem, it would be required that proper monitoring system of the drains constructed by the BBMP is maintained. In the event of any fresh storm water drains required to be constructed depending on the hydrological survey conducted by the BBMP, the BBMP through the state would always have the option to acquire the said land and form such storm water drains for the benefit of the citizens of Bangalore."

These directions were passed while allowing a plea filed by Avenue Supermarts Ltd which operates retail/departmental store of grocery and daily essentials under the brand name 'D-Mart' and had approached the court questioning the show cause notice for cancellation of plan sanction issued in favour of the petitioner on account of encroachment of a 'Rajakaluve/Storm water drain.'

The petitioner also challenged an occupancy certificate not being issued upon the construction being completed and an application having been made.

The petitioner claimed that if a 'Rajakaluve' has not been shown in the Revised Master Plan (RMP"), no action could be taken by the BBMP. However, the corporation claimed it is not 'Rajakaluve' but it is 'Haddigidada Halla' to the extent of 9 guntas which had been encroached upon by the petitioner.

The Bench noted, that irrespective of the submissions made across the Bar and in the written statements, the notices issued did not reflect or refer to any such encroachment of 'Haddigidada Halla' but only referred to an encroachment of a 'Rajakaluve'.”

It added, “The proceedings of the Joint Commissioner and the subsequent notices which have been issued which have been challenged also refers only to an encroachment of 'Rajakaluve' and not to any encroachment of 'Haddigidada Halla'.”

It thus noted from the materials on record that the alleged encroachment of the storm drain was not shown by the corporation to the Court's satisfaction. 

Rejecting the contention of the corporation that given the construction made by the petitioner, the water flow was blocked and as such, action had to be taken against the petitioner, the court observed:

“Any action could be taken against the petitioner if the petitioner had unlawfully or illegally contributed to such blocking of water.  The RMP is not reflecting any nala, rajakaluve etc. The blocking of flow of water cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is for the BBMP to ascertain the actual reason of the same which could be manifold including the capacity of the drains constructed by the BBMP, siltation in the said drains, gravity and flow of water in the said drains, the hydrological flow relating thereto etc. It appears that the BBMP in the present case is only trying to shift the blame to the petitioner when none lies on the petitioner.”

Accordingly, in allowing the petition the court said that it was for the BBMP to conduct a detailed hydrological survey and survey of all storm water drains in and around the area to ascertain the cause of blockage of water and not to seek to contend that the petitioner has blocked the drain in his property when the records do not indicate the existence of any such drain.

Thus it directed the corporation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the grant of occupancy certificate in terms of the applicable building bye-laws and if any violation or deviation in the sanctioned plan is found, which is not compoundable, the Corporation was at liberty to reject the occupancy certificate.

Appearance: Senior Advocate K.G.Raghavan for Advocate Goutham Chand S F for Petitioners.

Advocate Jagadeeswara N R for R1 TO R3.

AGA Naveen Chandrashekar for R4.

Advocate K Krishna For R5.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 468

Case Title: Avenue Supermarts LTD AND Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3728 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21441 OF 2022(LB-BMP) WRIT PETITION NO. 20383 OF 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Order