High-Rise Buildings Lacking Fire NOC Can't Risk General Public: Karnataka High Court Upholds Demolition Of Construction Blocking Driveway

While dismissing the builder's appeal against the single judge's order, a division bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf, observed that the fire safety violations identified during the spot inspection by the Fire Safety Department were detrimental.

It impeded the movement of fire safety vehicles when the required setback around the building, fixed at a minimum of 8 meters width was currently lacking, the bench said affirming the single judge's order. In such circumstances, the Fire Safety operations couldn't be carried out efficiently by placing the aerial ladder platform for high-rise buildings in the driveway, the bench noted.

"The report furnished by the fire department, as we have already noticed above, speaks of the real truth of the situation of the building, where it would become very difficult for the Fire Department to control and handle any unforeseen disaster, as there is no proper free passage to move the heavy vehicles with aerial ladder. The high rise buildings with pocket apartments, regardless the luxury they provide in the apartments cannot be permitted to stand at the risk of General Public particularly the residents of the building and others in the neighbouring and nearby vicinities. This is based on the principle that the private interest stands subordinate to the public interest and public good. The exercise of such a governance by the local authorities are justified on account of its being reasonably necessary for the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the apartment as well as nearby vicinities,” the court held.

It further observed in unequivocal terms that Zonal regulations and planning cannot be deemed as 'unreasonable' or 'arbitrary' on the developers.

The writ petition before the single judge was filed by Rajasri Apartment Owners Association at Rajarajeshwari Nagar, challenging a revised Fire No-Objection Certificate (NOC) and a modified sanction plan that permitted the builder to convert the area into a mixed commercial-residential development, with a reduced setback area near the existing residential wing of buildings.

Upon the instructions of the single judge bench in the original writ petition, the Fire and Safety Department had conducted an inspection in 2024, which revealed that the setbacks in multiple directions were less than the legally required 8 meters with a turning radius of 9 meters, necessary for manoeuvring the aerial ladder-platform vehicles of the Department, utilised in high-rise building emergencies.

A fresh report from the BBMP also said that the setback maintained was less than 8 meters. Accordingly, the single judge bench asked the builder to halt the construction and keep the modified sanction plan in abeyance until the setback requirements as per the Fire NOC are met. Further the single judge had directed demolition of the construction made in the setback area.

The builder, Vishnu Sri Builders challenged the single judge's before the Division Bench arguing that the Karnataka Fire Force (Amendment) Act, 2023 should not be applied retrospectively and that there were no statutory rules mandating more than 8 metres setback.

The Division bench concluded that even the setback mentioned by the builder has not been left around the commercial block, and even otherwise, there is no sufficient space for seamless movement of fire safety vehicles in the mixed residential-commercial block.

“…The builder in the case on hand knew it very well regarding the permissible construction, however for best reasons known to him not left the setback, which is clear from the report of the fire department”, the Division Bench opined.

The High Court also clarified that a professional builder stands on a different footing when compared with a private individual. Any failure to abide by the applicable rules and regulations could be presumed as an 'intentional' act to 'earn profit', which should be dealt with 'sternly', the court said.

“…The professional builder is supposed to understand the law and all other regulations and deviations, if any, keeping in mind the larger public interest in the apartment as well as in and around the apartment structures and neighbouring vicinity…any deviation which is at the cost of the public safety at large cannot be condoned and brought in line, except taking the actions to make it in line by providing space including the demolition of the extent of the building which has become an obstacle in the free passage of movement of vehicles, including heavy fire engines with other safety equipment…”, the court said.

Dismissing the builder's appeal the court upheld the single judge's order

Case Title: M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1637 Of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)