The recent collapse of an apartment building in Bengaluru’s Babusapalya, which killed nine construction workers, has become a stark reminder of Bengaluru’s troubling trajectory with illegal construction. Amid public outrage, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced on October 26 that a new law would be introduced to curb illegal construction.

The problem of illegal construction is not new; stems from a procedural laxity. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has a framework in place under the BBMP Act, 2020 to tackle illegal constructions, mainly through Sections 248 and 356, which allow issuing notices and possibly demolition. However, enforcement rarely extends beyond notices issued.

Section 252, which seeks to hold officers accountable, has proven vague, with undefined penalties for negligence, thereby allowing a cycle where BBMP intervention stops after issuing notices. This gap in the law, experts say, creates an environment where contractors manipulate legal loopholes for their own profits, often at the cost of public safety.

According to Sandeep Anirudhan, founder of Bengaluru-based Citizens’ Agenda, BBMP officials often facilitate illegal activities for personal gain. “They have clarity about the devolution of responsibilities, but there is no clarity about the punishment for an official if he does not do his job.” This lack of accountability encourages officials to take bribes instead of obeying the law, with minimal risk of disciplinary action.

“If there is no risk for you and you can earn millions of rupees in a month, what will you choose?” Sandeep asks.

Residents of Bengaluru have consistently flagged the rise of high-rise buildings on plots as small as 30×40 square meters, with deviations from the BBMP-approved plan that can be as high as 100%. Recently, a photo of a five-storey building constructed on a 250 square meter plot went viral on social media. While the BBMP was quick to demolish this structure immediately, its response in other cases is often limited to official notifications.

Sandeep argues that officials who ignore illegal construction face, at most, suspensions rather than punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the potential public harm. He points out that suspension was the only action the concerned official, Assistant Executive Engineer Vinay K, faced after the Babusapalya building collapse.

“Nine people died and one official was suspended. It is a dereliction of duty by the official, but what is the risk he faces? Zero. Do you equate the lives of nine people with a temporary suspension? The official caused a situation where the building could collapse and kill people. It is literally murder. The government should have filed a case of culpable homicide against him.”

As Vittal BR, a lawyer at the Karnataka High Court points out, “There is no check during construction to ensure that it is done as per the plan approved by the BBMP. Without doing so, officials cannot continue to demolish buildings. If a demolition notice is issued for a building that has been granted permission, the builders will go to court.”

“The pattern has unfortunately become predictable,” he says, “notices are sent, builders secure court suspensions and subsequent lockouts. Even if the BBMP goes ahead with demolitions, the battle often goes to court, leading to a long legal limbo.”

Vittal says that officials’ dereliction of duty is costing owners who have bought houses and flats from builders. “The government says it will demolish all unauthorized buildings. Where will the homebuyers who have invested their hard earned money go? Ministers and the government will not compensate them. Why didn’t they do their job properly in the initial stage?” he asks.

What is striking is how easily builders exploit the rules. Lack of rigorous checks by BBMP further encourages them.

Take, for example, the floor area ratio (FAR) criterion, which defines the maximum buildable area based on the size of the land. According to Vittal, builders take advantage of ever-changing FAR values ​​to justify floor expansion, often adding floors without improving foundation support. They create structures that, over time, are likely to collapse.

Vittal explains how builders are using the FAR changes to their advantage. “The builders retain ownership of the terraces of the buildings, which in itself is illegal. The terraces are part of the common area and should go to homebuyers in the building, according to the sanction plans. But most sale contracts and sale deeds will say that the terrace will remain in the possession of the builder and the home buyers cannot question the builder in case of further improvement of the building. This is a loophole – when the FAR is revised by the government, the builder will get a revised sanction plan and start construction further on the terrace area.”

The consequences of such uncontrolled expansion are serious. Illegal structures crowd the city, putting pressure on essential services. “None of the areas where new buildings are coming up rapidly have the capacity to handle the traffic or congestion, leading to sewage overflows, power outages and erratic water supply,” says Sandeep.

Political influence, according to Sandeep, also hindered the full implementation of the BBMP Act. “Politicians are ultimately to blame. Our parliamentarians are not serious about laws. They create situations where they can continue to make money from illegal activities,” he claims.

Besides calling for strict action against look-alike officials, Sandeep believes reform will only be possible with devolution of power to local wards.

Bengaluru’s failure to implement the Nagar Palika (74th Amendment) Act is a major hindrance to orderly urban planning. The law, meant to empower urban local bodies and improve city governance, has yet to be effectively implemented. If this were not the case, the city could have had a comprehensive master plan, proper zoning and sufficient infrastructure planning.

“Instead,” says Sandeep, “this ‘constitutional crisis’ has left Bengaluru to grow without proper planning or civic governance, exacerbated by a municipal council that hasn’t held elections in four years.”