BENGALURU: High-rise buildings containing compact “pocket” apartments, irrespective of their luxury features, cannot remain operational if they present any danger to public safety—especially for residents and neighboring areas. This ruling came from the high court while rejecting the writ appeal submitted by Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers, Bengaluru.
The court emphasized that private interests must be secondary to public welfare and the common good. A panel of Justices DK Singh and TM Nadaf noted that regulatory actions by local authorities are justifiable when necessary to preserve public health and safety.
On September 3, 2025, a single bench ordered that the approved plan for an apartment complex at Halagevaderahalli, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, be temporarily suspended until compliance with the setbacks mandated for residential development in Block A, as detailed in the fire no-objection certificate dated April 19, 2014.
The court also prohibited the appellant-builder from continuing any construction until the necessary amendments are made and instructed the BBMP to demolish any structures built within the setback area surrounding Block A, Wing B, related to development in Commercial Block B.
The Rajasri Apartment Owners’ Association challenged the revised plan on several grounds, primarily addressing concerns that reduced access would obstruct fire trucks, emergency vehicles, and ambulances.
In the writ appeal, Vishnu Sri Builders argued that there are no explicit rules requiring setbacks beyond eight meters, claiming they had adhered to this distance.
However, the bench noted that the claimed setback was insufficient, with discrepancies on three sides. Even if such a setback existed, it would still not meet the required turning radius for fire trucks equipped with aerial ladders, which exceeds nine meters. The available space at the site does not allow for safe movement of these vehicles in emergencies.
The builder was fully aware of the permissible construction guidelines but chose not to maintain the setback, as evidenced by the fire department’s report, the bench remarked.
A review of the fire department’s report dated July 12, 2024, alongside the building layout and setback details, confirmed that the movement of aerial ladder vehicles would be impractical during emergencies. In the interest of residents and the surrounding community, and based on the report’s decisive findings, the court rejected the builder’s claims. The division bench concluded that there was no error in the single bench’s order, which was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence, thereby dismissing the writ appeal.
