Judgment 1. The petitioner has undertaken development and construction of residential apartment in the land bearing Sy.No.98/3 of Rachenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The property measures 3,385 sq.mtrs. Petitioner has obtained a building licence for the construction of apartment consisting of stilt floor, ground floor plus three floors. Annexure-A is the sanction plan issued on 18-8-2010 by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore (for short, ‘BBMP’). According to the petitioner as per the building plan, the coverage area is 59.39% and the floor area ration is 1.79, as against the entitlement of 65% and 2.25 respectively. 2. It is his case that the height of the building reached by the petitioner under the plan was only 14.85 mtrs. He asserts that he is entitled to build up to the height of 18.00 mtrs. and put up another floor i.e., 4th floor. Hence, the petitioner applied on 13-7-2011 to the BBMP requesting for sanction of the 4th floor by modifying the building plan sanctioned vide Annexure-A. This representation is produced at Annexure-B. 3. By an endorsement dated 26-7-2011, the respondent-BBMP through the Additional Director (Town Planning) has rejected the request of the petitioner stating that in view of the opinion of the fire department that buildings above 15 mtrs. had to be treated as high rise buildings, permission for additional floor, in the absence of no objections from the department of fire could not be granted. It is in this background, the petitioner being aggrieved by the endorsement issued, has approached this Court challenging the same seeking a direction to the respondent to sanction the modified plan for the 4th floor in accordance with the Zoning Regulations framed under the Revised Master Plan, 2015. 4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned endorsement suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as ignoring the Zoning Regulations under the Revised Master Plan, 2015, dated 22-6-2007 published vide Government Order No. UDD 540 BEM AA SE 2004, produced at Annexure-D and the definition of high rise building, as contained in the Revised Master Plan, 2015, the respondent has rejected the request for permission to put up 4th floor solely on the basis of the opinion of the Fire Department that buildings above 15 mtrs. have been treated as high rise buildings. have been treated as high rise buildings. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that the definition; of high building under the Zoning Regulations, duly approved by the Government under the Revised Master Plan, 2015 is binding on the BBMP and has precedence over other guidelines and regulations framed by the Fire Department. It is his next contention that based on the prevailing Zoning Regulations under the Revised Master Plan, 2015, dated 22-6-2007 framed by the BDA and approved by the Government, the petitioner had undertaken the business to construct and develop and scheduled property by leaving the required set back and adhering to the floor area prescribed. Therefore, by treating the construction put up by the petitioner as high rise building, he cannot be deprived of his right to put up construction by obtaining sanction for 4th floor. He urges that if the guidelines of the Fire Department are applied with retrospective effect, petitioner will not be in a position to met the requirements stipulated by the Fire Department, as the petitioner cannot undo what has been done by putting up the ground plus three floors. The Counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to Regulation 3.12(iii) of the Revised Master Plan, 2015. Zoning land use and Regulation dated 22-6-2007, wherein, it is stated that for all buildings with the height of 24 mtrs. and above NOC from Fire Department in addition to Pollution Control Board shall be furnished. He further invites the attention of the Court of Regulations 9.1 and 9.2, which are part of Chapter 9 of the Regulations, providing for the protection requirements and safety measures against the earthquake. The said Regulations read as under: “9.1 General.— The planning design and construction of any building shall be such as to ensure safety from fire. For this purpose, unless otherwise specified in these Regulations, the provisions of Part IV: Fire Protection Chapter, National Building Code, shall apply. For multi-storied, high-rise and special building, additional provisions relating to fire protection shall also apply. The approach to the building and open spaces on all sides upto 6 m. width and their layout shall conform to the requirements of the Chief Fire Officer. They shall be capable to taking the weight of a fire engine weighing upto 18 tones. These open spaces shall be free of any obstruction and shall be motorable. The approach to the building and open spaces on all sides upto 6 m. width and their layout shall conform to the requirements of the Chief Fire Officer. They shall be capable to taking the weight of a fire engine weighing upto 18 tones. These open spaces shall be free of any obstruction and shall be motorable. 9.2 Exits.— Every building meant for human occupancy shall be provided with exits sufficient to permit safe escape of its occupants in case of fire or other emergency for which the exits shall conform to the following.— i. Types.— Exits should be horizontal or vertical. A horizontal exit may be a door-way a corridor, a passage-way to an internal or external stairway or to an adjoining building, a ramp, a verandah or a terrace which has access to the street or to the roof of a building. A vertical exit may be a staircase or a ramp, but not a lift. ii. General requirement.— Exits from all the part of the building, except those not accessible for general public use, shall.— a. provide continuous egress to the exterior of the building or to an exterior open space leading to the street; b. be so arranged that, except in a residential building, they can be reached without having to cross another occupied unit; c. be free of obstruction; d. be adequately illuminated; e. be clearly visible with the routes reaching them clearly marked and signs posted to guide any person to the floor concerned; f. be fitted if necessary, with fire fighting equipment suitably located but not as to obstruct the passage, clearly marked and with its location clearly indicated on both sides of the exit way; g. be fitted with a fire alarm device, if it is either a multi-storied, high-rise or a special building so as to ensure its prompt evacuation; h. remain unaffected by any alteration of any part of the building so far as their number, width, capacity and protection thereof is concerned; (i) be so located that the travel distance on the floor does not exceed the following limits : 1. Residential, educational institutional and hazardous occupancies : 22.5 m. 2. Assembly, business, mercantile, industrial and storage buildings : 30 m. Note:- The travel distance to an exit from the dead end of a corridor shall not exceed half the distance specified above. Residential, educational institutional and hazardous occupancies : 22.5 m. 2. Assembly, business, mercantile, industrial and storage buildings : 30 m. Note:- The travel distance to an exit from the dead end of a corridor shall not exceed half the distance specified above. When more than one exit is required on a floor, the exits shall be as remote from each other as possible. Provided that for all multi-storied /high rise and special buildings, a minimum of two enclosed type staircases shall be provided, at least one of them open directly to the exterior to an interior, open space or to any open place of safety. iii. Number and width of exits.—The width of an exit, staircase/corridor and exit door to be provided at each floor in occupancies of various types shall be as shown in columns (3) and (5) of Table 23. Their number shall be calculated by applying to every 100 sq. m. of the plinth or covered area of the occupancy, the relevant multiplier in columns (4) and (6) of Table 23, Fractions being rounded off upward to the nearest whole number”. 5. Petitioner asserts that he has complied with Regulation 9.2. His submission is that the building was neither high rise building or multi-storeyed building having height of 24 mtrs. above the average surrounding ground level. Therefore, he was not required to comply with Regulation 9.1. His submission is that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will provide all fire safety measures legally required to be provided, but he cannot be asked to comply with the condition and requirements stipulated in the notification dated 7-7-2011 issued by the State government, as the same cannot be meet retrospectively and the same cannot have overriding effect over the Master Plan and the Zoning Regulations, which held the field at the time when the petitioner had applied for the sanction plan. 6. In addition, Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, on Sections 81-B and 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and draws the attention of the Court to Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 to contend the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations framed therein shall prevail over the notification dated 7-7-2011 issued by the State Government. 7. 7. It is also contended by the Counsel for the respondent-BBMP and the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has applied for construction of additional floor after the Notification dated 7-7-2011 came into force. He refers to Section 13 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, to contend that the notification issued incorporating several fire safety measures is applicable to all the buildings regardless of when the construction had started. He further contends that since the notification dated 7-7-2011 is the subsequent notification, the same prevails over the earlier notification regarding the definition of high rise building. They have emphasised the fact that having regard to the fire accidents that frequently result, with a laudable object the notification dated 7-7-2011 has been issued framing the rules and hence both the regulations have to be reconciled. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the BBMP is justified in insisting for No Objection Certificate from the Fire Department for grant of permission to the petitioner to construct additional floor and whether the petitioner can be deprived of his right to seek permission to put up additional floor based on the Regulations notified on 7-7-2011?” 9. The impugned endorsement proceeds on the basis that as per the opinion of the Fire Department, building having height of above 15 mtrs. are required to be treated as high rise buildings and permission to put up additional floor in such buildings cannot be granted in the absence of NOC from the Fire Department. 10. It is not in dispute that the Zoning Regulations framed under the Revised Master Plan, 2015, which have come into effect from 22-6-2007 having been published vide Government Order bearing No. UDD 540 DEM AA SE 2004, defines the term ‘High rise building or multi-storeyed building’, to mean a building of a height of 24 mtrs. or more above the average surrounding ground level. For such high rise building, as per Regulation 3.12, No Objection Certificate from Fire Force in addition to NOC from Pollution Control Board shall be furnished. Therefore, as per the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and the Zoning of Land use and Regulations framed and duly approved by the Government, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-D, petitioner’s building cannot be called as high rise building. Therefore, as per the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and the Zoning of Land use and Regulations framed and duly approved by the Government, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-D, petitioner’s building cannot be called as high rise building. Therefore, as per this Revised Master Plan, 2015 and the Regulations, there is no requirement to take No Objection from the Fire Department. 11. However, the question is whether in view of the subsequent regulations framed by the State Government on 7-7-2011 in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, placing an embargo on the BBNP or the Local Municipal Authority to grant building plan/licence without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Emergency Services in respect of high rise buildings, petitioner’s request for grant of permission without obtaining such No Objection, could not be considered. 12. A perusal of the notification dated 7-7-2011 issued under Section 13 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, discloses that the State has framed these rules to put in place preventive measures in respect of buildings of 15 mtrs. and above in height and other important public buildings to save life and property of general public. A perusal of the said notification further discloses that several safeguards are sought to be put in place keeping in mind the fire accidents and to ensure that the buildings are inspected by agencies empanelled by the Fire and Emergency Services to ensure that the equipment installed are in good and workable condition. There cannot be any dispute that whatever fire safety measures that are required to be put in place in the existing building constructed by the petitioner and in the proposed construction which the petitioner intends to put up can be insisted and the petitioner cannot plead immunity for that. But, what is important is, petitioner cannot be asked to undo what has been done by him in putting up construction strictly in accordance with the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan given to him for the purpose of enforcing the fire safety measures as notified in the notification issued on 7-7-2011. But, what is important is, petitioner cannot be asked to undo what has been done by him in putting up construction strictly in accordance with the building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan given to him for the purpose of enforcing the fire safety measures as notified in the notification issued on 7-7-2011. Any condition to be put after the construction which is otherwise made in accordance with the existing rules and byelaws can only be regulatory in nature and it cannot be said that for putting up additional construction, petitioner has to demolish the construction already put up by him so that fire safety measures as provided under the notification published in the year 2011 shall be adopted, otherwise no building licence would be granted. 13. As rightly contended by the petitioner, he has provided the required space around the building as set back as per the existing regulations and if he has to provide additional space to put up additional construction, it is impracticable as the same can be achieved only by demolishing the existing building. Therefore, for the purpose of fire safety, the definition of high rise building has to be regarded as a building which has height of more than 15 mtrs. requiring No Objection from Fire Department. In the light of the Zoning of Land use and Regulations framed under the Revised Master Plan, 2015, wherein high rise building is defined as building having height of 24 mtrs. or more above the average surrounding ground level in respect of which only No Objection from the Fire Department was made obligatory, it has to be construed that the effect of Notification dated 7-7-2011 can only be that the fire safety measures as provided in the said regulations have to be complied with without insisting for undoing the construction already put up so as to affect the structure of the building. This result is required to be achieved in order to harmonise the effect of both these rules and also to ensure that fire safety measures introduced in the notification dated 7-7-2011 with a laudable object to prevent fire accidents and mishaps that are occurring too frequently are substantially given effect to even in respect of permission already granted before the notification dated 7-7-2011 was issued but without calling upon the owner to demolish the existing structure. This will also save the 2011 Rules running the risk of coming in conflict with the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 viz., the Revised Master Plan and the Zoning of Land use and Regulations. 14. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 76-M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. The Revised Master Plan, 2015, and the Zoning of Land use and Regulations are the result of the power exercised by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Therefore, Section 76-M gives precedence to these regulations. Even if there are other regulations framed by the State Government or even if there are building bye-laws of the BBMP defining high rise building as height of 15 mtrs. and above requiring clearance of Direction of Fire Services, without impinging on the rules and regulations framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the same can be enforced. It is also necessary to notice here that as per Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the Corporation or its authorities are precluded from doing anything against the provisions contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the Regulations framed therein. 15. In the light of the above, the inescapable conclusion is, that while the petitioner is required to abide by all the fire safety measures that can be incorporated in the building constructed by him and the portion to be constructed by seeking necessary permission by the BBMP, he cannot be asked to follow such measures which may render impossible any additional construction by the petitioner. This is because at the time he obtained permission, there was no such rigor and the permission was granted after following the rules and regulations applicable at that time. 16. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement is quashed. The BBMP is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner for permission to put up additional construction. 16. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement is quashed. The BBMP is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner for permission to put up additional construction. If the petitioner has to install fire safety measures, he is required to do so as per the relevant regulations framed including the regulations framed in the year 2011. But, the authorities cannot insist for compliance of conditions which will result in demolition of the construction already put up or make it impossible for the petitioner to adopt such measures. Apart from the above impossible measures, any other measure required to be incorporated has to be adhered to by the petitioner.