* 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE I ‘ e Ste — -S • r , • P • 4 •1 • —• I. • - a • S — - a — S — : S. —. ‘I t . t 3— Section 321(1) & (2) and notice dated 17—4-1989 Annexure ‘C’] under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ( ‘Act’ for short) alleging that the petitioner had violated the sanction plan. According to the corporation, the petitioner had to leave a set back of 6 , 3’, 6’ and 4’ on the left, right, front and rear sides of the building, but the petitioner had left only a set back of 3’, 2’, 3’ and 2’ respectively on the said four sides and thus violated the sanction plan dated 28 31988, Therefore, the corporation directed the petitioner to demolsh the deriations. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of Annexure ‘B’ and ‘C’ and a direction to the corporation to sanction the modified plan and permit the petitioner to complete the renovation work. 3. The petitioner contends that though he obtained a sanction of plan for demolishing the old structure as he f und that. the old building wa strong, he did not demolish the old building and decided only to change the roofing; that as the old building has been in existence for a a long time, the question of old building complying with the set -4 - backs prescribed in theLplan sanctioned on 28—3-1988 did not arise. The petitioner contends that the sanctioned plan dated 28—3—1988 would be applicable only if he had demolished the old building and “ )€) reconstructed building. In the circumstances, he contends that until the application filed by him for modification of the plan, proposing to retain the old structure and to change only the roofing thereof and adding of first floor, is disposed of, the corporation could not take any action as has been done under nnexure ‘8’ and ‘C’. 4, The petition averment that the petitioner had applied for modification of the sanctionLplan and that th petitioner had not demolished the old building remains uncontroverted, The question of petitioner leaving set backs which are required for construction of a new building, will not arise, if petitioner is altering the old building. provided sanction is obtained for such alterations. S. Hence, this petition is disposed of as follows: —7 1 a) The Corporation is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for sanction of modified plan p G4L c(.i’ W b) If, tne coiporation tails to trace out the appIicatiofjled by the petitioner seeking modification in the sanction plan, the corporation shall inform the petitioner and the petitioner shall have liberty to file a fresh application for modification; and c) Until such disposal, Annexure ‘B’ and ‘C’ shall not be given effect. Sd/ JUDGE *pjk/ujk