Karnataka High Court
M/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport Area on 28 January, 2011
IN '1"1~u«: HEGH comm' OF KARNA'I'AK.A. IEBANC:-ALORE
DATEZI') TEES '1'?--{E .?.8"?" my OF JANUARY. 20 11
PRESENT
'.I'1»-IE HONBLE'. 1V.['R. J. S. KP1 ELHAI2. c1w1£r«:F %
AND V' is A
mg: HC)]\E'I:'3LE<3 MIR. JL§s':'£<f:<:a:1rx--.--S;«.
wan' APPEAL Nos.37:-3 g 359 20 1':
BETWEEN
1.M/s. Baba Deve1oper*s~.Pvt. Liki.;' Having its registered Qf£'1ce'a't: §?JVo.19f--'20',~% _ H€§§,£{a12ahal1'i v1'.1lag€. _ A 'L " --
Kundana Hobli, ' DeVanaha11i.V'E'f:a'1L:.}:, V '
Bangalore T_{L1rz§;'.~'{)is{1*"§(:t_, Bar1g§a!(iré5', ' * Rep. by ifLE'§ NI.af1;a_g'1ng«L}i_Ié~;1_tof', ' P. Sasibf3.14S3?€i;'3- '
2. P.sa.éh:bhq.sh$m';"L<.V S/0. late: C+haridr2i3h3k"l':.a1* Rao, R/at P10£"N0; 19~[2o,~._ ' I-i{egganaha1'11Village, ' Ki1r1,d.ar1E1 Hobfi,' ---------- ~ "
« , _Dev2in ah_e1'11§ Taluk, = Bem'gg101f€~ Rural District,
3. SR. An_::1's'L1y-:51, W /.0 ASa,sibh.usha:1.
AA jAged_.a£bc)ui 50 years.
' E3/at. Pkfi. N0.19~20, " .}-_iA6:gg21:1a11z111i viiiage.
K'u1"1.dar1a HOEJIL D€V211'1£1h€11§i '1.'aiuk.
Ba.r1g211{)1"c? Rural} If)ist.§"1'::%« E?3211':gz1.}<}1':?. ;XPP§?3E,.E.AN'1"S {By Sré. E3§}£1f.§'§£2EiY E's:Z.S.? Adv, anti Sré. P2us'a:'1<=?§9'£1 UL, ;'-'§<i'x»:§ 2 AND E. E3a1'1ga1ore Ir1t.e1*m;1€i(:1121i Airgyori Area Plexnnin Autlmri 1.},-1 Rep. by its Ivlembétr Sec:re{.e11}?, LRDE ¥3ui.Ic§.§ng, K-Xi; Askew" Road. Banga}are~»§6O 052.
2. S't::»3':e of Ka1'I121i'.aka, [Department of 1'~£c)usi1'1g and Urban I36ve}{>pI}'1e§1{, Rep. by as S601-eiary.
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalom m 580 001, i .u§--;,}§:£:sPO:\'z[I:_,E;»;TS (By Sri. }';3.Veerappa, V V . I ' 'lac, These Writ, A}3p'<§;j£I5. ar<.§A fi1:é(:V1" 4 of the Ka1'nat.aka High Court Act, praying to '$96!; asgifies th'e._Qrt16:r passed in the Writ Peution 'No.7732~??34/V2009 {LB~:ReS}.;:1'a1§<-;d--*'18. 12.2010. téoaixjnvg 0%: for Pre1imina'ry Hearing, this __ _ _ V 3 1€xc_'it:.1he £131_1t)&i-*ing:
day, ('3'i1ié:'*;1u5.-:.;';; , " JUDGMENT J.s5.mI;eHAR, [c."J. (max):
" _ '}.f,, I"S, I"1{).'iV =21 matter of ciispute, that various Cor1vers;i0'n orders 'V-.I<:ifé: pass éL__i ih respect' of the iancls owned by i:h.e appellarlts U3'Id("31' of the Ke1:~na':aka Lama Revenue Act, 1964. accept;ir1g » xt:§1L<::A..};3I.'21ye1r of the E1p[)f3H'c"111'[.S. for change: o£'1a:r1.d use.
2' I---Ezxvillg obiiainczté the af<)'I'<2said :;:haI1g€ Qf kind use: as 221.55), 11:} <}t3je(:¥;im'1:s {:€é:'i'§§'i.(:21t.ess from ther. A;';"pori. At.1*£'.11c>r%i3; of India, 2155 weii 215;, [E19 Kam':21i"aL<:a §7<J1}1.1E.§or1 {jammy} £302-.-z.rci, {he 21p;:>r:%§§21r1'E;.ses :'1'1au:.ie EH} 21ppI.i::21ti{)1'1 an 1i'}.€)5.2¥C}O5. 5;€c:ki;'1g,>; p€%1'"r1'1is3ss1'0n for 3 fo1'n1at.io11 of .21 resideiiiial lziyoiii. The aforesaid pemiission was however not greinied. ii 1:3; i'.he1'efoi'e._ that the appellaiiis approached this Co'u1't. by filing \V.P. l\Eo.'l8997/2006. for a direction to -the responcieiiits io approve the §a}f,€}i.i-{ %»p]Jgi}1.. The aforeeaid vs--'Fit peiiigion came to be disposed of,_ dai.ed 18.12.2008, requiririg {he respoiideiiis io r1i2i.%_:i;i3;..iilai_i*;, on or l:>efo.re 31.01.2009, and t.heifeaf:i.e:;A, oi°i.bé.
appellants for ifomiation of i:he. .resider_1i,i'2ii layoii-i:.. Vi .
3. Since the prayer ~'o_y*£3§ie did not fructify into 3 positive order. approached this Cour': by filing WP. Nos.77i32 eiforesaid writ petitions came to be a Judge on 18.12.2010.
The Ordeze V 16;. by the learned Single Judge, while disgiéogingof "\i;%,,;2.i'N§é..7732m7734/2009 is the subject matter Oil4e;§h'€11.1.€Y1g€.V"€I.fi_VVll;}C l"ia1I1dS of the appellants through the instant.
'A
4. '}i.'11e::'i'E1'sf and foremost c:(>r1i1eni.i.oI1 advanced at: the hands of iezirueci counsel for the appeii.2u:ii,.s was. that 3. provisional V. AAIfi1Z'i..$ii€1' plan ctzmnoi. be enforced. in Lhis behalf, learneci counsel for appeilanizs has plzieed. zfeiiariee on Sections 9 io i.4--A of ihe Kzirnaiiali:/1 'E'ow1'i arid C1o1.i.nf:'ry i3'laiii"iir1g ,Ae::i.. .1961.
5. To be fall' io '§l'3E: Eemiiecsi citozmsel iei' -am a§ipell.a:".ii:s. ii" E3 :'iec:es~s:~:se.ry for 11.8, io 1'ee(>1'ci 1.151.211. the leziriied ezliimsei galagteci I'€';ll:§{.:1{'.€ K} mtfimbwtfiv 3%"?
fiwmmwm 5
8. In order to asssatil the tinal Itnaster plan prepared by the respendent.s, the 21ppella:1t'.s lzave Ixaised the lbll<>win;g grounds {in the i11st:.2"-mt Writ appeal}:
"5.«'§) Tlze Learned Judge has failed to apg)1;yjli;1jl'e._V_la\v laid r:lc>wn by the Horrble Su.pre1';1e....._"Qet1l9t '"";1_1 Tvijayalakshmi and et.h.ers vs. 'I"'ewn reported in 2006(8) SCC Peirei'"l.fl:'_t1i;V"'the.V judgment is as under:
13. Town . e'Pl_an11iiligV liegislai-:1epé: am; regulatory in nati1're: The ' to jhprepelfty 0f .21 persen WQl1,1lrlA."vifiC?E.t;de ta Construct Sueh a right, however. can't-be __f-easoil of a le5,§ie'la1t.i011§:.l Vt.he«f_v)rovis1'ons of tghe "I':rgv»-"11 C0unt'ry V Pi;_1f;ni11§,' V c:0n1prehe11sive l'"'~(:levelVC;--pri1erit""lV plan was prepared. It i:idiepg___t_2;b1y is still in force. Whether the 'ameradments to the said eompreheneive V A 4VlVe1e§_%e1opn1ent plan proposed by the A j A{.'t11,hority weulci ultirnrately be accepted by the State or not is Lmeert.a1'.1.1. It is yet: to apply its mind. Amendmerms to a clevelopment. plzm must c:o1.1l'()z"'m. to the p1'0visic>11e of the Act. As-r. notieecl herei:1befor<:t, the S1'.a'l.e hm; Cailecl for el:gjeet.§{::1".1 l'r'::m1 tile c:.i:,i.;':e.z':s. l€3et>1(:gica'1 l:2alz2.1'1<':e rm ticmbt: :"equi;'ed {Q be :11z1ir"1 Lam eti 2.1 1'1 Cl th e {.';()E.} 119 wh tie l:}t..c:t3"p:r<:t:it1g 22 et.21t':t1te S1}{3U.ld beszlfiw ?' Master Plan ca.'11'11oi'; be enferced. The.rel"<>1'e, Master Plan prepared made? Sesction l3{l) of the Act by the Plannixig Act. as cm l.?'.9.200-4 cannot be: enlmced. finding of 'the': Lc*a1'ri.ed Single Judge holdixig that 'l.'.Vijayal21ks}1mi'S case has; :10 ap';_:}Ei<*2.>..'t'i<31'1? be accepted.
5.5] The findiiig of the bearried iii gjauig .18 that principle laid dowr-;;"by.1;_h.e-'_'l--lQ1ilbl?:_ Su«;5i'e£;a:e ' Court in case 0fChaim'1an, "}§11dL_ji't>. 'i?'il{z1_s"Pi*a£ll1£l«:2?u'2tna reportad in 2007(8) SCC.'_705 no 'c1§Tf}Ti'L;iig"?.?litiC.}f1'l;S \' enoneous. The Hémflile Su'pife2.'n.e_.'_= C'Quri. while interpreting {lag prox?isi.o.ri$" V .01' " hya -PraLEf<ish Toxm Planning Act whzifi-.11 §rl{ifx--.__'io "'~Ka1'nat:aka Town & counuy Planning Acf; 'piira.-.55v,.';§5,_'_.57, 68, 69 & 70 held. as fqllaws:
é fix-a_y" V_ Vuivioiice two precise ll"'S1;1'b'I:1i_sVs1o_1_i:3.__bf =M1j._.»5Venug0pal at this ~ staggj<:§V--.
_(i] development. plan includes draft ll éléizelogainent plan;
Exisstence of sazch draft, develeprnem plan would autldorize the appellant Authority to declare its intention to prepare 21 town devel0}_3n1eni'. szzherne at ariy iixne.
86. The drafli. ci€rw:l()p:31e13i, piam. 'WEES pi1b§?§.Sh§3,Cl :31': 2'7.€i.2{}O3 alt.l1<>'L1g;§li ii was small, 501' <',<>r1sid&:rai.i<Ji.'1 cf the: Sims in 1'.€?l"Ilj1S§ 8 of Se<:i;i01": "$9 of the A01. 9.10.2003. The same was reEu1*n<:d to {he Appellant AL1t1"10rii':y 2-stating that pian to be p1'epa1r:t1__ for the pr0jc:3.cted in the year 2021 abmsat: 4,! I /2005, A D1*afEi E)r:>x:€_1-f;if3:r:?:§:*;£'.:
Plan, 2021 was published LS:ixV1y o11 13.7.2008 wherezxs J{,h=C"'C1€5C1E1IT~'f;"1tiQV'fi'Afivy Appeiiant. Au1ih.0rity'-._ w_;1s. ' I1'0i_i.fie:ii 1"
20.8.2004. S:.1'Vm'7c_1'1'ssio«1'3; 0f'--T\/Ir. 32¢;-gm that a deV'e1opmemEi'V"p1an hvx-='QuVid.[i':3c:i%;jd'éW21 draft, dev¢1opn1eni:._x§§1anr._Vis sc':>'L1gh_{ be made as st:$_1tuf£e '.h.;.;s i':';i:.crchangeab1y used draft ,_ _isanctioned ciexféiopmg-frat "a:g.V__devi;'ldpment piarx uOI}' .'L°_fi-,5? 'stféfigth of Ciause 3: _ [i--$_r) .;)I' §L1b+_gé;é~ir,:_ii§)f1'AA{1)'pf; Section 18 of {he 1E=;ying'.,d0xx?11 a notice shail be i_sSvE:'dA V£.hé1'«i: "'L--znde1' containing inter aha pé{rf:1cu i'a.rs viz;., the provisions for V c.n£'C:rci'in§-{fie drafi cEeveI0p.met1i. plan and stafing.----iHe rr1am1e-r in which perrnissions
--. I%)1j deveiopment may be olatained. ' We do not see any force in the ssaid argument. It is possible {(3 enforce 21 draft deveioprnent plan in 21 given case, but the s':at1;1t.e mast ss;3e:<::if:i,ca11y provide for the 8211116. 81111, 22 c:ir2-1ft. deveéoprnérlli. plan which has not a€':4;.ai:'1€rd fi.r1.a1.Eii"y Ceimrzoi. be heiid 1.0 be ci€ri.<:rr:"11iI1a'iivr: 3.1" H26 rigghtss 2-md <;~E:)1igat:i0n:-3 as? {he §32,1:°ties; 2131:}? ihusz. it can 11€*.\«"f;'I" bi? §fI1f,}§€I1'3t'fIi1'{€3d. Sec:1,ic,>z1 E30 Qf ihfii 'E3 AC: expliciily states Ehai: the 'c1L1t'ho1'i1,y may deC.1a1'e its i1'1te111.i(J1:}. to prc;1pa.1*e 2': (Own deve](>p1'I'i.(-r1'1t scheme which havillg r<i*g"a;t'd to Scamiorl 2(a) of the Act must: be read '§_0 n1<3a.n de('Ea1'a1.icsz'} of its i:r11;>Eex;1<:%11t.a1jiCI}"T [sic in'{.e:114;.io11} 1.0 p1'e.pare 2: scheme V£%;>__r' 1'mp1emr3nf:at'i011 of tile p1*ox*isic>r.§§s'* of ' cleveiopmclit plan.
68. We have (?Tc)n1c;"'TA.a(:rbss"~ _'s0:un.é'~..« iegislaiions, as Vf&)1T4€X£i1'fi;')3€"C; 1h<3TVI*IEmavche1!."; Pradesh Town ar:dr€301111try'~--
1977 xvheye a p}Af',t,1\s'iV:S-$'iQff£-3.,_'h£1S Eiiee-.11 E317 p1'eparéki::i;m_1 (ff 37-;a..}'ii:--i'¢a:i'i11Vpievciopmerlt pian. It is "not" V_i:r,:L'V'CIi>:=fpL1.--é1é:[V.i'1'i:§1t',__ '?1egis1ati0ns reiéazfizlg" ticioxifrl;a17gd\.§:o.u11'tr;;: pir'm1ning; are " siinj1ar_... if iegisiature »o4Ij*'i.'iAI1'1::)ier11ei~;t€iti0n of a d:ra.ft d(:?VV€"3.O;a)4VIIj€i»1"1Vt "'5312111, they couid have also "provided for an 1'm.eri1':n deveiopment. plan whic"f1'v*--------i~pVs0 f:;1c:t'0 wouid have been * « éz.1'i_'<)1'Ceab1e.
69;' A d€.vei0_p1:<1<:;ni pian even in ordinary .3'par.1z111ct<: can be irxlpierneimid cmiy when it:
is final. and not Wllera it is at the ckrafi.
stage Len. S%,.iS('.€'pi.ib1.C to Chang Not only land z:s<~3 ma}? gecagraaphicaal. érhange, 'U16 ot}1(:*r citssmiis I}f1E1_'}»' 21}:-so z.21'1cEe;:§;() .21 <:than.ge. The abjec:i.i<3:a.<.; amci $:.,:ggest.i<}::S imflzzci frzyrtz 3.112? ge1'1e1°2~2} ;:}:2§'JIi{% as; aléssc) me:
pe::'s.;e1'2s 2a1'§'i"<:=,*<tée<:i :'1'1ay be? a:<?(te2}.)t.cécI. "§}1<2:"a '\ fie!' 10 may be 1'ee1.£ig11n1er1L It may undergo se1"1'eu.s n10difica{ions. Once the Iegisiature has defined a term in i:)i,er'preia1?.ioI1 eiause, it is net. for it use the same expz*eSsio;1__i-:i_ V provisions; of the Act. Ii: is weii meatling assigned to ;;"i,*e':~'_:;2 es' inf} {he i:rzierp1'eiati011 E;«i&z1ul'<_é_'e" I' context otherwise r:equir;eAsV_ 's'E1e11Ed':E>e; giyVen_'§ the same 111ea111ingLe'e»
70. It ivs"".2V{1s_«A3:V --_t_I"1at in {he absence of H --.:1,.'i;fsflie2zti:1g a eem';réU"3' :i_nt§;p.f.Eo:1., meaning «"'a;r0}zbe'ajfi§,;jgé1<1ed*..'tedf;:11e_ word used in the i_s'--. fhem in the ear1.ier """ H that the words or '' h in a stature before and shouid be given the
4.Vsa.1f':3£-2 '1r1'1e'2§.1'1ihg. It is .21 settied law that wheh' '1':h'e'Iegislature uses the same words _ a simiiar contlection, ii is to be efeétanled {halt in the absence of any .,,£./q.;ie11text 1'nd.icat.'i:1g a contrary in*{,en'zi0r1, the same r11eanmg should attach to the w(>1'd:t-3.
Thus, bare readirig oi" the pmleiple Iaid down. by the I"-I<>r1'b1e Sup1'eme C(:\u.;'1, z."11a1«;es it, abL1ndan.i.1y clear 1:I'1ai, dnafi'. }'j)eve1c)p21'1e'111 P1311 here in 1~{a.ma.t:a£<:a called as p2'ev'isiu:)n.a,1 ;\'.Ias;t'::e:' Piszm <;:am'1e:': be er1f<3reec:E. The pI'éz§eipIe:t Iaici ci'<}w'11 by-*' the I":{er1'b1e S11pr€:me Cm,1.r'i: in M2 1 1 the above case squarely z1pp1'ies 'to {he facts of this case.
9. It is not the ce11i,en1:1'on of the learned e0_a_:__1_1se1 for the appeiiams in pE1I"ag['£1phS 5.4 and 5.5 extracted that the I'E?COII1II1€ff1C1£1UGI1S made by ee:'1'.ain to be ignored. whi 1e evemually finalizing the :11ai_s{.ei" "psI';.1.ri."" 1'1...;s.s.a1s'c sflze C031i,e1"1ti0'n of the learned (:(3L1:1sei ..the._21'ppe3.Iéifit--S,Wgrlzit '{hc"
finaiization of the master p¥i'11'1.__1'.r1 evi«*e:1:VfeuaIly take it as in vioiatien of the Vof expectation.
and as such, a \rE0i21ti\,:*e_..':¢'*.f_ " Constitxliion of India. It is moi possible for "{h.eV&'s.:;"o:h1issions advanced, at the hands appeliants. The basis depicted Vic) assail the ;f'i11aI master plan is in e'ur"view,. V1fg*q:'.'V«;r:_us'}e;1'u':)§;¥sv__3V{ 'zsflgxceeptabie in law. We, therefore, find no 'fI'"1CI'iutV "'i.['1 " e0_f1t'e'E'::i':i0t1 of the iearned Counsei for the a1j:p3eI}§1_frf1tsV, thautx"1,he..fina1 master pian prepared by the 1*esp0nder1ts, ' Wézs. nQi:'<i1 1«.ecmsonanee of law, espeeiaiiy when refe'rer1ce is net '.i1'12ide €10' :1-iiy ,€§i211s1.1te01'y p'i"O'»§iSi()I1 £0 depict any st,a1;ut02"y v'i01e~1f,i0:11.
" V10. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, as has 'Desi; nzxrrated hereinabove. it. emerges that fine} master plan has been prepared. The permission seughi, for by the appeliams, for fem.1ai.ie:m of a E'f3:SiCI&'.I.'1i,iEii layoui eanrmt: be ae.<':ep1;ed., as the izmds <>w'r1e£l by Eézer a.;3pe1§a:11.s is Sii',LEE1E.{?Ci 21 [1 :1 plaéte '€sEhf;':"}"€: izhe f€)m1ai...i:3:1 12 of a :*esi::1em,1'.a.1 layoufi. impermissible: as per the aforesaid r11ast'e1* plan.
For the I'€'.€iS()I1S :*eC01'd<:rC§_ 11e:rei.r1z1b0\-K3. we fi11Vc_¥.-.__;'1.0 nitérit, in the insfielrai. app<33.1s, and 1.11:: same are a(:c1orcii11g§1}% In View of d.ismiss:-11 <}{'tf:1e main appeals. 11);' difection does not SUi"Vi\---"(;*. for C()I1S}:d€1'.E}'ii.0i1f.' ' Cfizis §9as'é:?§Cfé<~