demolition

Kaveri Layout

Koramangala

BBMP

owner

Now, in a first-of-its-kind battle the injunction order that has been issued to stop thepits Pujari against his boss, the municipal commissioner himselfThe four-storey building came up right in full public view atinand even a kid could make out that it has violated building bye-laws. So local residents went about sleuthing and then complaining to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (), specifically speaking, Koramangala sub-division assistant executive engineer S H Pujari. Still no action.They suspected the usual builder-owner-BBMP nexus. They did not a clue to who theof the building was. Not until a complaint went to the Upa Lokayukta’s office, leading to a demolition order, and a subsequent injunction sought by the owner against the order perforce revealed his name. It was none other than Pujari himself.Now, in a first-of-its-kind battle the injunction order that has been issued to stop the demolition pits Pujari against his boss himself: the municipal commissioner.It all started with the neighbourhood witnessing the construction from the scratch; they had noticed that it had no setbacks, that it had jetted into the storm water drain and that it was beyond the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limits.After knocking on the doors of Upa lokayukta Justice Subhash B Adi. Following a spot inspection which proved that the structure was being built in contravention of rules, Justice Adi issued a building demolition order and the building owner obtained a court injunction. This court order proved to be a clincher and the cat was out of the bag – the applicant/plaintiff name mentioned in the order read: S H Pujari. Simply put, the custodian of the area who ideally should be responsible for regulated development, Pujari was busy constructing his house with scant regard to the law.This did not come as a huge surprise to some of the smart residents who have campaigned for a host of public issues. A well-known architect who lives in the neighbourhood was the first one to notice the violations when the building construction began and informed others. Pujari’s property is on plot number 20, (PID 68-311) measuring 2,255 sqft, according to the documents accessed by BM. Says Muralidhar Rao, a civic activist and an area resident: “The construction began about 18 months ago and I can see the building from my apartment. We noticed that the column footing was on the edge of the drain and the first floor jets into the drain. It will be difficult to clean the drain as the cleaning machine is huge and will not be able to maneuver. As the construction progressed without any correction, we approached the area AEE Pujari, but he did not show any interest. We then met Upalo­kayukta and filed a complaint.’’Everytime the residents complained to Pujari, he told them the he will take a look at the property. The residents also tried to find who the owner of the property was but it was in vain. The building almost touched the residence next door without the required setback space. The columns are on the edge of the drain – this nullah runs all along the border of the army land and carries the run-off water from this vast terrain, meandering through Temple Tree Row, Kaveri Layout and joins Bellandur Lake.The case is now between S H Pujari (plaintiff) versus BBMP commissioner (defendant). Justice Adi told Bangalore Mirror: “There was a building violation case that was brought to my notice. Just because he (the AEE) is an authority, it does not mean that the rules can be violated. The engineer has approached the court and got an injunction against the building demolition orders issued by me.” Interestingly, Pujari also appeared before the Upalokayukta for a few hearings in the case representing the BBMP.Pujari initially refused to acknowledge that the said property belonged to him. When BM gave him all the information and told him about the documentary evidence showing him as the building owner, Pujari’s reply was evasive: “Which property? I have not received any order from Lokayukta. I will check the details of the Koramangala property and get back to you.” Pujari remained incommunicado subsequently. The injunction order issued by the City Civil and Sessions on April 23, says: “Pleased to grant an order of ad-interim injunction against the defendant from demolishing any portion of the suit building or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s lawful possession of the suit property.”