BENGALURU: An entire 15-floor block in an apartment complex in northwest Bengaluru will be demolished for violation of the sanctioned plan. The high court recently directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) commissioner to prepare a plan for evacuation and demolition of the 15-floor ‘A’ Wing/Block of Platinum City in Peenya to ensure that the development is in compliance with applicable laws.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj posted the matter to Dec 11 for further consideration after the BDA counsel stated that a tender would be issued within two weeks and awarded within a week thereafter, with the result to be placed on record before the court.
The court had earlier held that the top portion of A Block of the apartment was constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan. It was hearing a petition filed in 2013 by the builder seeking a direction to the BDA for the issuance of occupancy certificate in respect of A to G blocks.
During the decade-long hearing, several defects vis-a-vis those buildings, including the non-existence of a sanction plan and development plan at the time of construction, were brought to the notice of the court.
When the petition came up for hearing on Nov 25, 2024, the judge pointed out that the petitioner-builder, Sheriff Constructions, took a fresh stand in their affidavit filed on Nov 25, 2024, that, based on the opinion of their structural consultant, they would be unable to remove the slab and the beam of the 15th floor.
The removal would render the entire structure and its neighbouring structure unstable, it was argued.
“I’m unable to accept the affidavit filed by the petitioner. This court on several occasions granted several adjournments to the petitioner to rectify the defects and violations pointed out by BDA. This was in order to try and save the building/s from demolition if the petitioner were to satisfy the requirements under law. There were several violations committed by the petitioner, many of which were observed in the orders passed in July and Aug this year,” the judge added.
The cost of the demolition and any losses caused to homebuyers would have to be borne by the petitioner-builder as per the value of the apartments as on the date of demolition and also taking into consideration the inconvenience caused to the purchasers/residents, Justice Suraj Govindaraj further observed.
“The latitude that has been extended to the petitioner isn’t on account of the petitioner but taking into account the various purchasers who bought the apartments wherein the illegal constructions were put up by the petitioner,” the judge said. “The petitioner was permitted to raze the top portion of the building with the intention to try and save the other floors when, in fact, there was a requirement for demolition of the entire building. The petitioner now has come forward by categorically stating that the top portion cannot be demolished due to structural instability for the whole structure, and it is very clear that the rest of the building cannot be saved. Therefore, the entire building would need to be demolished.”
