BANGALORE: Karnataka High Court on Wednesday extended till January 5, 2006 an interim order granted earlier staying the issue of notices by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) to property owners in Sadashivanagar for violation of land use norms.

Taking to task the BMP for not filing its objections in all the 40 cases that came up for hearing on Wednesday, the court directed the civic body to file comprehensive objections in each case. It decided to continue till January 5 an earlier interim order staying the issue of notices to the owners/tenants and the order of closure passed by BMP on commercial establishments. The court had in the last week of October and early November stayed the issue of notices to hundreds of property owners and tenants in Sadashivanagar for allegedly violating the norms on land use.

Permission not sought

The BMP had claimed that the owners and tenants had not obtained permission for the change in land use and subsequently used residential houses for commercial and business purposes.

It said it had taken up a survey of the area after a Division Bench of the High Court had admitted a public interest litigation (PIL) petition on the violation of building norms and zoning regulations in Sadashivanagar.

The PIL was filed by the Sadashivanagar Residents' Association, which had contended that several representations to the authorities had gone in vain and no action had been taken to set right the deviations.

When the BMP started issuing notices under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (KMC) Act, the residents had challenged them before the High Court.

While the BMP claimed that the residents had not obtained permission from the BDA for change in land use, some owners and residents had said that they had been paying taxes at commercial rate and that the establishments were set up years ago.

When the matter came up, the BMP said it had issued preliminary and confirmatory notices to the owners and tenants of buildings after it noticed illegal change in land use or zoning regulations.

It said the palike had sealed several commercial premises but the premises were "unlocked" after the court had asked it to do so. Justice Rammohan Reddy, who heard the cases, sought to know what provision of the law gave BMP the power to lock the premises or ask establishments to close down. He sought to know the provisions under which the notices were issued.

He directed the BMP to file its statement of objections in all the cases and adjourned hearing in the case to January 5.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu