Bengaluru: The High Court on Tuesday dismissed all the public interest litigation (PIL) petitions questioning the legality of the law framed for regularisation of certain types of unauthorised developments and constructions across the State under the Akrama-Sakrama scheme.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Budihal rejected the petitions. As a result of this order, the law will remain in force and constructions under the Akrama-Sakrama scheme can be regularised. “There is no merit in these petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed,” the Bench said.
The state government had defended this scheme stating that it was a one-type measurement as per the scheme which had been upheld by the Supreme Court while hearing a matter relating to Tamil Nadu. The petitioners had however argued that the scheme was unconstitutional. Some of the petitioners also said that the fee fixed for the regularisation was discriminatory.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Justice Budihal R.B passed the order while dismissing petitions filed by Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development and others. It was contended in some of the petitions that the regularisation scheme is against the concept of planned development envisaged under the law and hence the Akrama-Sakrama scheme was unconstitutional. However, some other petitions, though supported the scheme, had termed the free regularisation was fixed indiscriminately.
BBMP Mayor welcomes HC judgment
Welcoming the High Court judgment on Akrama-Sakrama scheme, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Mayor G Padmavathi said that implementation of Akrama-Sakrama would enable the civic body to generate Rs 500 crore to Rs 600 crore revenue. “The revenue generated through Akrama-Sakrama will be utilized for the developmental works in the city. We may use that money to repay the loans taken from financial institutions by mortgaging BBMP buildings,’’ Mayor Padmavathi said.
Who can apply under this scheme?
Only the rightful owner of a property can apply for regularisation provided the violation is with respect to floor area ratio (FAR) and setback area, and within the prescribed limits.
What are the prescribed limits of violations that will qualify for regularisation?
The prescribed limits for regularisation of violations pertaining to setback area and FAR are:
a) If the setback violation is less than 50 per cent in case of residential buildings and 52 per cent in case of non-residential buildings. b) If the FAR violation is less than 50 per cent in residential buildings and 25 per cent in non-residential buildings.
What happens if the development is more than the permissible limits?
If the developments are more than the permissible limits it will not be regularised unless the violation is brought down within the prescribed limits for the respective category of buildings.
