Karnataka high court cites public safety, bins builder’s appeal over fire-safety setback violations

Bengaluru: High-rise buildings featuring compact "pocket" apartments, regardless of the luxury they may offer, cannot be allowed to stand if they pose any risk to public safety — especially to residents themselves and to those in neighbouring areas. The high court made this observation while dismissing the writ appeal filed by Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers, Bengaluru.This is grounded in the principle that private interests are subordinate to public interest and the common good. The exercise of such regulatory authority by local bodies is justified as being reasonably necessary to protect public health and safety, a division bench of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf observed.On Sept 3, 2025, a single bench ordered that the modified sanctioned plan for an apartment complex at Halagevaderahalli, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, be kept in abeyance until it is brought into conformity with setback requirements for residential development in Block A, as stipulated in the fire no-objection certificate of April 19, 2014.The court restrained the appellant-builder from undertaking any construction until such rectification is carried out and directed the then BBMP to demolish the structures erected within the setback area around Block A, Wing B, insofar as they pertain to development in Commercial Block B.Rajasri Apartment Owners' Association approached the single bench challenging the modified plan on multiple grounds, including concerns that reduced access would hinder fire engines, other emergency vehicles, and ambulances from reaching the premises.In the writ appeal, Vishnu Sri Builders contended that no specific rules mandate setbacks exceeding eight metres and asserted that they had, in fact, provided an eight-metre setback.However, the bench, noted that the claimed setback had not been adequately maintained, with deficiencies on three sides.The court observed that, even assuming such a setback existed, it would still be insufficient, as the turning radius required for fire engines equipped with aerial ladders exceeds nine metres, and the available space at the site does not permit the free and safe movement of such vehicles in the event of a disaster.The builder in the case knew it very well regarding the permissible construction, however, for best reasons known to him, did not leave the setback, which is clear from the report of the fire department, the bench added. A perusal of the fire department's report dated July 12, 2024, along with the building sketch and setback details, shows that movement of aerial ladder vehicles would not be feasible during emergency operations. In view of the larger interest of residents and those in the surrounding vicinity, and in light of the categorical findings in the report, the court declined to accept the appellant's submissions. Finding no infirmity in the order of the single bench, which was based on an exhaustive consideration of the material on record, the division bench dismissed the writ appeal.