JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order passed under Sec. 321 (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 1976 Act) and order dtd. 15/4/2015 in Appeal No.514/2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru whereby the order passed under Sec. 321(3) of 1976 Act is confirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.M.Prakasha for Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner in possession of site bearing No.50, formed out of Sy.No.17/1, 27/1 and 27/2 of Avalahalli, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru totally measuring 55.75 meters. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained sanction plan for constructing the residential building in terms of the sanction dtd. 24/2/2010, in terms of Annexure-B. It is the case of the petitioner that residential premise was built in terms of the sanction plan and in terms of the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, 2003. It is his submission that Smt.R.Indiramani, neighbour of the petitioner complained alleging unauthorized construction. He submits that there is no deviation from sanction building plan and the suit between Smt.R.Indiramani and petitioner is pending with regard to encroachment. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order under Sec. 321 (3) of 1976 passed only to satisfy the neighbour Smt.R.Indiramani and there is no deviation from the sanction plan. Learned counsel would further submit that the Appellate Authority without taking note of the contentions of the petitioner, in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds urged by the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara for respondent-BBMP would submit that the residential premise is built in total violation of the sanction plan and in that regard, he invites attention of this Court to Annexure-L, order passed under Sec. 321(3) of 1976 Act and according to the learned counsel for respondent-BBMP, there is 100% deviation in front and left side setback of the building. Therefore, he justifies the order passed by the BBMP. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal after going through the records has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Therefore, he justifies the order passed by the BBMP. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal after going through the records has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. The petitioner has placed on record the sale deed in respect of site in question. A perusal of Schedule of the sale deed indicates that the petitioner's property is measuring 6.10 meters East to West and 9.14 meters North to South, totally measuring 61.75 square meters. The 2003 Building Bye-Laws requires leaving setback of 1 meter in front, where the depth and width of site is up to 6 meters and up to 9 meters. A perusal of the provisional order passed under Sec. 321(2) and Confirmation Order passed under Sec. 321(3) of 1976 Act would indicate the deviations as follows: As could be seen from the above table, there is deviation from the sanction building plan to an extent of 100% in respect of front and left setback. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that there is no deviation or violation of sanction plan cannot be accepted. 7. Every citizen has a duty to adhere to the sanction plan and to follow the building Bye-Laws while constructing the building. It is the responsibility of every citizen to adhere to the Building Bye-Laws for sustainable development. 8. A perusal of the Tribunal's order indicates that after perusing the original records relating to the confirmation order, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is deviation of 100% towards front and left side setback of the building. No material is placed on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the building is in conformity with the sanction plan or Building Bye-Laws. In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.