BANGALORE: The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) on Monday informed the Karnataka High Court that residents will have to obtain permission and also fresh sanction plan if they wanted to put their residence to commercial use.

The BMP said the sanctioned plan for a residence varied from a plan for a commercial building. The setback of a building, parking space and other issues relating to a building depended upon whether a building was permitted as residential or commercial.

Making these submissions, BMP counsel Ashok Harnahalli said in the case of Sadashivanagar, the residents had on their own changed the usage of the building they had constructed from residential to commercial.

He said even if certain activities and establishments, such as clinic and advocate office were permissible under the law, the residents would have to obtain permission from the planning authority.

He said when a layout was planned by the Bangalore Development Authority, it would notify in the plan and earmark plots for residences, civic amenities and commercial areas. However, a resident could apply for change in the land use to the BDA.

He was responding to the queries by the court on the norms to be followed by the authorities while permitting change in the land use and the growing commercialisation of residential areas.

The court was dealing with scores of petitions by residents, business and commercial establishments, banks, law firms, schools and software firms who had petitioned it against the notices by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike asking them to close down as they had violated the change in land use.

The BMP said that any change in the land use must be in conformity with the laws of the land, including the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), zonal regulations and building by-laws.

In its statement of objections, the BDA contended that it had permitted change of land use in Sadashivanagar only in a few instances. It said in most of the instances, the residents had on their own changed the land use.

The former Advocate-General, B.T. Parthasarthy, said the residents were confused about the CDP of 1995 and said till date they had not been given a copy. He said the residents could make further submissions and reply to the BDA only when they went through the CDP.

Justice Rammohan Reddy directed the BDA to furnish to Mr. Parthasarthy's clients a copy of the CDP and adjourned further hearing on the case to Monday.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail