H V Vijayaraghavan S/O H V Reddy vs Malathi Das Chief Secretary To Govt Of on 19 March, 2009

[Cites 15, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

H V Vijayaraghavan S/O H V Reddy vs Malathi Das Chief Secretary To Govt Of on 19 March, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2009 (4) AIR KAR R 385

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

-3-
5. K.N. SHIVAKUMAR,
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (AMENDED vIDE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ORDER DT.
AND INDUSTRY, 13.12.2006)
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE - 560 001. A_C'fl.}'$'»i*Z;.f{):.: 

(SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR CO,uNSEL.--EOR7R1""5  
SR1 S. VIJAYASHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL'FOR_ Sr: .p_;1:,  

CHANDRASHEKAR, ADv., FOR R5)

W.P. N0.3568/ 2007
BETWEEN:

1. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE..CCJRRI.DC)R"  ; , 
ENTERPRISE LTD.,,--_   A   I 
HAVING ITS REGI_sTE:RED,O;=FIC'E I   
AT No.1, MIDF(§JRD_««Ht}UI:3E,-._--..___    I
MIDFORD GARD--EN?S.-:'_ " '  . 

OFF. M.G. R'O'AD_,E. 
BANGALORE--56O"o'D1_, ,  , _--

(REP., BY ITS 'DULY 'CI NSTITi.JTE_D
ATTORNEY SR1 "D. RAVISHANKAR)

2. NANDI ECONOMIC C_OR.RI'DOR
ENTERPRISE, LTD. ,1. ,  I

1.»i+§AVIN(3'}FTS___REVG1STERE.DOFFICE
'AT No.1, MIDEORD HOUSE,

MIDEORD, GARC)EN'S,
OFF-. N:.~G,' 

  BANG.ALORE--55€) £301.
 '(REP., BY ITS' DULY CONSTITUTED
<...__A's'I'ORNEY SRI D. RAVISHANKAR)



(SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR 
SR1 V.T. GOPALAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SR1    A 

SUBBAREDDY,SENIOR ADV., FOR R4 
SRI NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S. '

SUNDARASWAMY RAMADAS AND ANANO,..AOvsf,"'EORjR'3   

SRI Y. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV., FORTZR2

SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETFY, ADV., F'OR::I_'M~PLEOAD:I!\:|'G   

APPL1CANTIN1.A.4/2007 H , A. 
SR1v. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV.,_FQR su*N1THP.. 
KALSOOR, AOv., FOR APPLICANT 1'N1.»A.1v/20.07    I

SRI T. NARAYANASWAMY, AOv., FQ.RA"'vAPP_LICANT.1AN 15A.
111/zoos   _  

SRI LEO F. SALDANA, PARTY:1N-PERSSjONAEORIMPLEAOING
APPLICANT IN 1.A. 5/2007)  I  

W.P. No.1755o/21105

BETWEEN:

Dr. B.K. CHAKRAPAN1, *1 '  I
AGED ABOUT 48 YEVAR-S," _     ~
S/O G. KRIS-HNAMURT':-{Y.,._  __ 

R/A No.159, 33? MAIN,  » '
CHENNAMANAKERE  '

ACHKATTU, 

.'j'BF\NAS'HANi<ARI 13"" xS'T'A'G'E,

3.'3D.P'HASE,_ ,  
BANG/ALOPRE-..Sf:O .9515. PETITIONER.

Oiiv'»....v.,(SRI'DIEM.  SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 SMT.  A.i\jU'P;ADHA, ADV.,)

"RAMBO;

 %  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
* Bx/.1TS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

 



-5-
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr. AMBEDKAR
VEEDHI, BANGALORE-1

2. THE BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY

(BMICAPA)
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
TOWN PLANNING  I
PB. 5257, MS. BUILDING, PHASEEF}
Dr. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,  

I BANGALORE-I, BY ITS cHAIRMAN,,__."ﬁ 

3. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE (:ORRID,OR*~--_
ENTERPRISES LIMITED,   
No.1, MIDFORD HOUSE, MIDFORDT_ j'    "
GARDEN, OFF. M.G,jROAD,.*   
BANGALORE--S60     
B'/ITS MANAG,Ir~£G,DIR.ECTQR."   .

4. THE MIN.I.S_TR~'{ "OF.:ENvIRO_NME.NTH 
AND F0RE,STS,"G(F}\/ERNMENTOF . (DELETED VIDE
INDIA, NEW DELHI',.j--._ -   I ~ ORDER DATED
REP., BY ITS SECRETARY,   08.08.2008 IN
 * " V -  C.C.C. No.641/2006)

5. LAKE4§DEvELORIv:ENT AUTHORITY,

 BY' ITS «SEC~RETA,RY,  IIIII 0'

'BANGAL0RE;«., 

6. ICHIEVF E'NE€:"I~NE.ERn, '

A  v'».COMM{_!NICA.TIO_NAND BUILDING

(SOUTH), K-.,R."CIRCLE,

 *E}ANGALO'P.§;i- RESPONDENTS.

 -(SR: F!3LSIH«OK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R1

S;RI0'NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR M/S. SUNDARASWAMY

 j   ----RAMADAS AND ANAND, ADVs., FOR IMPLEADING
A  A  'AP¥"LICANT IN I.A. I/2007



AND

-7-

SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETW, ADV., FOR IMPLEADING

APPLICANT IN I.A. 4 /2007 
LAW PARK ASSTS,, ADVS., FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT_,_':«..,_ 

IN LA. S/2007 ,

SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL I=OR,.A'I~'I--/SQ 

KING AND PARTRIDGE, ADVS., FOR R3

R4 DELETED VIDE ORDER DT. 08.08.2QD8__PAS*SED":ﬂ\j»    

C.C.C. No.6-41/2006)
W.P. No.12607/ 2007

BETWEEN

ELECTRONIC CITY INDUSTRI..ES  *
ASSOCIATION,   _  
SY. NO(P), ELECTRONIC CITY V  <
WEST PHASE,   - v_ 
HOSUR ROAD, DA,.N'OALORE ~ 550 1-00  
KARNATAKA     . I IV   
REP., BY ITS EE>'(ECUTI\'/"E--.DIRLECTQR.  

.... I      « I PETITIONER
(SMT. NALINI_YEN'I<ATES,H,»ADv., FOR SRI
BASAVAPRABHU S. I PATEL,' ADI.I,,,,.)

i--.., STATE O.FV'¥(ARNA,TAKA,

BY *ITS.IgSECRjET'A 
HOUSING ANDRIRIBAN DEVELOPMENT

 '"DEPARTME:§IT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
 V EANGALOREYN.

 = 2, I 'BAN.GALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE
 AREA, PLANNING AUTHORITY,
 I f'EP.-,3Y1TS MEMBER SECRETARY,
 HAVING OFFICE AT



M.S. BUILDING ANNEX 4,
BANGALORE-1.

3. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR ENTERPISE LIMITED

HAVING ITS REGISTERE OFFICE   

AT No.1 MIDFORD HOUSE,  "  2
MIDFORD GARDEN, OFF M.G. ROAD,  
BANGALORE-1,  _ 

REP., BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTO_R~.,

4. NANDI ECONOMIC CORRI~D_OR_='  ., , 
ENTERPRISES LIMITED    
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFT-=Ic_E'f' 2

AT No.1, MIDFORD .+~i--OUSE,"""*--  "  1  :
MIDFORD GARDEN,'OF'E M;=__G. gROAD._. 'I 
BANGALORE-1, P.EP.,5§_B_Y_' ITS  1;: ,
MANAGING DIREC,TO_R.'-~--..    RESPONDENTS.
(SRI }AYAKL}_MAR_S; R,ATI;,, 'SENI--O_R CCi~UNSEE. FOR

SRI M/s. KING AND PA:RTRIDjGE, A_DVs., FOR R3 AND R4
SR1 HARAN'A,HA_LLI,. SE.NEO'R...COU.NSEL FOR R1)

c.C_c. NO541/2dc.6"'*'(CIVIL) IS FILED UNDER

  AND THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT
RR/.wfING T,OT.I%FI.ITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

THE,,R-ESNRONDENTS FOR DISOBEYING ORDER DATED

 =»18.11'.2;'Jo5VRASSED IN W.P. No.20'729/2003 (GM-KIAD8)
VIDE ANE\i..EX'URE 'A'.

 ,,  'IN"O.3S68/2007 IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH

 ASIDE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT.



-9-

04.11.2006 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE 'P' AND PROHIBIT
THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SERVANTS AND AGENTS

PERMANENTLY FROM ACTION PURSUANT TO 
G0VEE%\WB".EN$.?%§s,%'}ibB§-1%-%fL%Eo'¢'rWif6l%R1'5€>*T0uAs;%a.A'A

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.l1._2GQ.A<5::v.VVVVi:D|.§A

ANNEXURE 'A' REPORT DT. 1S.07.::"2J00'S"QF'«._THEV:_'C.5V1EF"V'I'.

ENGINEER, 5"' R P NDEN VIDE AN" E".."RE  ._ . 
w.P. NO.12%%7 2007 s FILED E;JRA\gNG QUASH I

AND sET ASIDE THE GOV'Ef('PJ.MENTv...OR:l3_.ER-EWVDT.

04.11.2006 PFNQD;§JCEVD"'*Af'"AjNVNEXUARE ; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS.[TO "1E;:<'PE'D.IjDT.E ATHEVRVCONSTRUCTION OF
PERIPHERAL AND 'LIm§'RORA.DIAs PER ODP APPROVED BY
STATE GOVERNMENT"VAIDé.._.Q'RDER DT. 12.02.2004 VIDE

ANN'Fl¥E§'§.f.E'E+I1'}ID'NS,HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

5'REvSER".(EDi,.EOR.zJUDG'E'ivi'ENT ON 06.02.2009 AND COMING

'FOR,7PRON4OIINCE.MENT OF ORDER ON THIS DAY,

 sATsHAII11P  MADE THE FOLLOWING:

 



 

-19-
ORDER

The writ petitions and the contempt of Court case are disposed of by this common order since V. interconnected.

2. W.P. No.3568/2007 is-"'"'fiie.d it Infrastructure Corridor short, 'NICEL') and two others?' of the order dated o4i~:i'i.:;«A2fti06ir pess~ed*«..A';§gj,'*«the? state - first respondent in 'P ' to the writ petition) and) and their servants andVagents_'pVeVr.rri'a.ne»nt.:~y'from acting pursuant to the Governme%nt=Q:rder:--da't_ed"'i)4.11.2006. 2,,,"JV.P.,,, NoV.'1'7'5S0/2006 is fiied by Dr. 8.K. cChe,k're'paenjfj.seei£irig.. for : quashing of the order dated s'»io4.1:'.2;ooo.oegssed by the first respondent - State _._7.j'j;=(An,nexure to the writ petition); quashing of the the fifth respondent -- Chief Engineer, . 3"----Comiiiunication and Building (South), Bangalore, dated ow?

-12- 5.1 C.C.C. No.64}/2006 is filed by the complainants praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for wilifui disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. 18.11.2005 and to punish the responden_ts*~'Cin with iaw and to award costs. _ 2 V' _ _ V 5.2. It is averred in petition, -_:?W.P. No.3S68/2007 that theVfirst_, ._a Company incorporated and re'gistere:d"'u'n.dfer' Act, and is engaged in_ eigelcutzijeni>-a;nd'_,.4':rnpliernentation of the construttion :_ Infrastructure Corridor Projecthe'iieinaFtge«rC_éreferred to as 'the Project'). The projectéwyasi ent--ru'sted':""to4'petitioner No.1 under the Framevyork Agre'e.rn'eVnt '(for short, 'FWA') dated has been upheid by this Court and the Hon"._bi-Cey.1Sdpif.en1Ae'"Court. Petitioner No.2 is a sister "company of first petitioner, in whose favour, rights 'the and anciiiary agreements reiating to Phase

-oftherrproject have been assigned. Petitioner No.3 is a \.Q\/3.

-13- Citizen of India and a shareholder in the first and second petitioner Companies.

5.: The FWA entered into;»..be.tWeen'mthe»ﬁfi:rst»_ petitioner and the Government of upheld by the Hon'b|e Supre'n'*.V3ue:V.*"~....(V_Zou"rtv- STATE or KARNATAKA Vs,' ALL 'la/lu;f\Nl.J.i'=i1s€."5:r_AUi§2viERS' ORGANIZATION ((2006) 4"sf{:c it is held as follows:-

ﬂi|.~iEis'e':'_c_i_rcum<stfances; we find no reason'T._'V:o the said direvetifonsoof Court} it In the future also}-.w'e:'ma:i{e:'V"i~t:%c!eaer:"tlja.t while the State Government Vandaitsffinstrumentalities are entitled 4xt'o_' 'exercise their contractual unnder'Ht'h'e"VFWA, they must do so A ' Ly'fa.iriy,"reaisonably and without mala fides; . that they do not do so, the AC2-o._uri_f'w.iAl7l' the entitled to interfere with the same;

A N 63. The High Court also found, justifiably 'fin our view, that the writ petitioners had been H sponsored by the State Government to put forward its changed stand in the garb of a \A/> .

-17- Government, insofar as it related to the formation of roads and infrastructure development was valid, while the acquisition of the remaining 40% meant for the development'*«.' S"

of townships and convention centres wasff"-S"

invalid and to that extent the VE"1C(]L:--iSitl(")'n quashed. The landowners, A' ' Government, the KIAD Boa.r_d<.,and also if were aggrleved by the judgAmeint._of.._the .l'e'ar.n_ec,l_7 .Single Judge and fil-end" separate'~~..w.ri"t~,appeals challenging the judgment. .e.tan'd.e_d.t the State Gove_rnrn:e-nt _fwi'i.tVA'a.lp:peal"was that the lear,n-ed Twasimwrong in quashlngt .gi0il?/e;»',:_of of land. This was,v'fa'lso"thfe_V joftithe Board. Nandi alsophart of the order.

Thus, liwouldh, that the State Government, _t'n'e' Board and Nandi were

-in their""w'r'it appeals that the learned 'ii,is:nglse,,"~Jpdge., had erred in interfering and ll"._qtiesh'in'gv..__4Q°/e of the land as not being in p'u_blic__v'Interest.

~ 68. Sometime in August 2004, when "tin--en writ appeals came up for hearing before _ _ fi"i»:'§: Division Bench of the High Court, the State ___§Government and the KIAD Board withdrew K;-J -18- their appeals, because by then, as we have already discussed, the State Government appeared to have second thoughts about the Project and felt that the land acquisitions were._'_» far in excess of the Project's,»require_'rnen'ts.;;v» ' Even though they were also the r-esyp'onsclen'ts- ' V' under the writ appeal filed» by Nandi, theyv-'did' A' not contest the claim and"e.l'add'ressedg it arguments before the Divisi_oli'a.._Be_.nchh'of--_the,:§ High Court. Those apple-a_|s*'_wet_re" disiposled of by an order dated 28-2--.2_Q0$_. "i5hé:fV'vap'pe'a«ljsf2fil.ed by Nahdi and, the. Tools Manufact.u--rjer<s hereinlaiter "the IMTMA"): wyeéefalIo'trJe«dV}":whe'reasg those filed by the and the order of "was set aside and the entire acqu'isit'ion= upheld.

_"'69,"V.arious connected appeals against .t;h'VeAi'o.rder learned Single Judge came to disposed; of by orders of the High Court déted.29'-"6-2005 and 1841-2005, in terms of

2. the detailed judgment and order of a Division "Bench of the High Court dated 28-2-2005 ';(hereinafter in the Land Acquisition matters it "the impugned judgment").

U-J -19- The contentions of the appellants

70. Though there are a number of appellants before us, the contentions raised"-,'V"-:4tj3.a*- before the High Court and us Zwei-e--prinAcipVally]_ as under: first, that no notice:'Awa::'_"served V' the" landowners under Sec-tion 2.8_('1) KIAD Act; secondly, tha't._fthe n'o.t_iCe_'.= of,' acquisition was vague _.l-a'ndVy_:*- 'ce.nsequevn.tlyv'V' prejudiced any effective.objeeti,on'*-beinlg raised by the landowners to be acquired"««y:,Vand firqaillily,"4.ﬁthia--tLwtfhe land acquisition' 'wastes-n§;t"forf...a"putilic'._:l3urpose, or for a puvrpovSe~.,,a"sits-:pecilfi'ed:"l*'ln .'t:hve__i<IAD Act, and wasyalso Project's requirement A|.t_hojuVgjlh'~..:ot4her contentions have also been..iraised_, Awe'u-will not deal with them as theVy"V--haye_,éalready been dealt with in first of our judgment.

. Non~se»rzv:?:e.-'of notice ":The argument that no notice was .. syeryedon the landowners under Section 28(1) "'AV.ofj':j:the KIAD Act, appears to be factually 'gincorrect. Even the learned Single Judge who partially allowed the writ petition came to the UK}

-20..

conclusion (vide para 22) in his judgment (dated 18-12-2003) that the "... petitioners in all these cases have filed objections on several grounds". Even in the appeal before the Division Bench, the High Court observed (vide para 30) that it was "... not in dispute that " ' landowners were served with notices an.ci,,_'the'--:"' objections filed by them,"'ii"ha«ve beenﬂ considered". Even before us"; when appeals were argued, no attc-{rnpt was made"'oy,_,_ any of the learned couf-nAsel',"_tc{V that the appellants had served notice of a5co_oisit:ion; _,.Ne--ititfer_ nding of the learned'ii.Single '3u'dig'e.: 'nor ofiiithe Division Bench'twangiilvfirnpitjgned»ﬂon thisvpoint. We are, therefore', the contention that notices "were n'o.t""serv:ed4'on the appellants as reguvired uand.eriSiectionv28(1) of the KIAD Act. . - _VagLife'néss of notice of acquisition next contention is that the 'notice acquisition was vague and co'nse"ouen.tly prejudiced any effective objection .. b,eing*r'nade by the landowners whose lands 'Vwerre sought to be acquired. The vagueness of Vfthe notification, it is contended, has vitiated \;./' -21- the notice itself, according to the learned counsel for some of the landowners.

74. The notification in the instant casye_"iV:VV"'-27 states that the lands were being acquiredfor L the purposes of "industrial develyopmenﬁr~--i.:{ieiit establishing and Eiiiidevelopingiiigf'incius'tria_l"

areas by the KIAD Board.VIn o»u~r__ «. "

Purpose indicatedin the"notifiic.ations'""is sufficiently precise andgis by the vice of vagueness :as~»al:ieged;__ Ou_ryV'attention, was dFaWn3'.Vt40"::I:_t~l.l€.j:1.ld§l:l'l'i.én.t .of="t'h--i--s~: Court in Aflatoon iv. .r.f.-at.' Lieli:§il'§'§ Vvhere this Court'*poi.nted outi~as"«fo'l!.ows:'*~~« "6. the'.que"s»ti_on whether the purpose specified in a notification .~f,und'er Secti'*onv____<i_i:s sufficient to enable an--."iobj"ection to be filed under Section _VS+,A'«wo.u'l'd__depend upon the facts and . c5rcu_rrista_n_t,;es of each case. ix ac >l= In the case of an acquisition of a V' 'flarge area of land comprising several "plots belonging to different persons, the specification of the purpose can only be with reference to the acquisition of the whole area. Unlike in the case of an acquisition of a smail '\/"

-24-

78. The various changes brought about to the KIAD Act, also reflect the intention of the State Legislature to provide for land acquisition for the Project. The expressions "industrial area" and "industrial infrastructural facilities" as definediHf..",:

under the KIAD Act, definitely include within their A ambit establishment of facilities that contri_b~u-tedtov the development of industries. We cannot~._fo:rge_t'--_._|' that, as originally enacted, the l<3_AD--__Act *a_ A. "

different, narrower dei'-i,r._1.'i':,i:ionA_V_ 0f"';ll;l'CliJ..S.fC'Fl§ll area"

in Section 2(5). In 1V9V_9V7,_ 'rj1ri'ejVdd defi'iig,ima was broadened also V' "finvdustrial infrastructu_rai=.,faeﬁities ameliviitieisfi Further, Section 2(':V/~:;;~)'i:..'w,as2"ad«dVe'd' "industrial infrastructural if _faci},i'tie_s"* in am Vmanner "broad enoughito "take _int'I'o-its» the land acquisition for the Project. _ _E"'The:l"«.learned Single Judge erred in rassurniing=,tiiat-.,:the lands acquired from places away"fror_n' main alignment of the road were g not p.a"rt, ofﬁthe Project and that is the reason he _ it ,jwasu_'persuaded to hold that only 60% of the land A ,""a,cq.ui_:s--ition was justified because it pertained to T the land acquired for the main alignment of the "highway. This, in the view of the Division Bench, " and in our view, was entirely erroneous. The \su> "25- Division Bench was right in taking the view that the Project was an integrated project intended for public purpose and, irrespective of where the iand.4fﬂ"'« was situated, so long as it arose from the of l the FWA, there was no questi_onj'V""---..of characterising it as unconnectecfwith. gal,' public', purpose. We are, therefore, in é2ugre'em'ent'~.w',it.h AV the finding of the High Court.»on__.thisVis.su'e. * Civil Appeals Nos. 7024-25*ib'f

80. As aplpeasis,jthe""'i'mpugned judgment or ("wde para 32) specifically"tha't_:'theéa'p'p'eilants did not have any right the land in question on the dateiithatthevufilied the writ petitions before. the Court} counsel too admitted beforeV"the--.--.High Court. The High Court accordingiy --foun_d that the writ petitions were not Am.a'i.n'tasin-able. Since the writ petition proceeded on this cannot permit the appellants to _ ftake a .diff_erent stand before us, contrary to what "u--hadrsbeen'" stated before the High Court. Since we _i.=ajv'e..r"not been convinced otherwise, the writ K"-gllpetitions werenot maintainable and the High Court was justified in the view that it took. of

-26..

81. In summary, having perused the well- considered judgement of the Division Bench which_4.._7. is under appeal in the light of the contentioins.'_j;..._'__i"'.j'dd"

advanced at the Bar, we are not satisfied that'"'«'t_he. acquisitions were, in any way,»»lia.b'ie 4' interfered with by the High Court, even the extent as held by the learned_4singieg_:iu--dge.girlie' A' _ agree with the decision of th':e"~.Division' it that the acquisition of the Ae.nti're'ia_nd fo'r.g;_hg, Project was carried o_ut_in_ c;onso_i:.a'nrc>e with the provisions of .-fo'rl-lfa._i3ublic project of great V" the development of" iiia ka. We do not think' magnitude and u;'gelncy.:cg5.can§,heheld individuals raising7._ objections thereto.' f_!"he powversiﬂzinder the KIAD Act represent tlhehvlpowlersv of eminent domain "v""vvest.e:d:,_in the Sta't'e}which may need to be exe'rcisved~if.e'ven to the detriment of li"i2d'i&1Vidu'a'i_T.s 'iprloperty rights so iong as it achieves 'avAi»arger public purpose. Looking at "the caseias a whole, we are satisfied that the "..jiji>roject is intended to represent the larger public interest of the State and that is why it was _entered into and implemented all along." (emphasis suppiied)« VJ -

-27- 7.1. It is averred in the petition (W.P. No.3S68/2007) that in view of the magnitude of project, the Government of Karnataka constitute_d':'__'_i-at1 separate Planning Authority known as Banga.lore-..:.Mysorei T' Infrastructure Corridor Area ('BMICAPA', for brevity) to reV4gt.tiAlat.e the';.:o'rder'l=~y"'v if development including various components of the Project.!_ made an application for of the expressway, peripheral road, 12 Km. expreissiwayﬁavnclii:}éia:ted'_'cornpoinients from the Public Works Depvartnwent, of Karnataka.

2/_A~-'theme aipproval of the said plan was granted on BMICAPA, in exercise of the power qunder',_Sectlonil.1i5 of the Karnataka Town and Country

-t_if'_j:,.Planning Act; 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTCP iigssued a notification declaring its intention to VV"'i..__p:repare an Outline Development Plan (for short, 'ODP') the entire area coming under the Project, W. 7.3 In pursuance thereto, the BMICAPA pre--«p3-tédcc"'*.VA the ODP comprising of S2 planning Districts .ai1dc4.at;téri public hearing and other requisite procegduresicvstipuliatédg. under the KTCP Act, the same was siseiarritnigtitevd Government.

7.4 The State 'accorded its approval to the said"!Z)_DP the KTCP Act by its ODP, inciuding ivcnter_'"t'":ir!.i:a", Expressway and reiated co:njponents~..':'~-.9 it WhileV'a'p_p:roving the alignment in the ODP, the Vlfoliowinig p'ro.yision_in respect of protecting Gottigere Tank in iziewot 'thev1t.airerction of this Court dated 16.06.1999 in uh. nt$';'172~3:2'3/'i999 was stipulated:

€w.P. No.17823/1999, Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., shali construct the As per the orders of the High Court in road as per the alignment and designs -29- specified by PWD without bifurcating the Gottigere tank and without obstructing the flow of water to the tank."

8.3. It is further averred that the Project,_.'iii--te'r:a':.§3;f _ includes construction of Peripheral_,.RQad connecting NH.7 (Hosur Road) to around Bangalore. On the sa'idv"'*:oad is :situated'5._a"'-lal:e called Gottigere Tank, of' 8.64 Km from Hosur Roads'_iritercha'n'ge§g iiriéfenk and its su rrou n di ng a ~ ear! V Local Pla n n i n g Area for, a Comprehensive Development-.Pla.nl°(Cl:i:i5),"fo.r:"t*he Bangalore Local Planning Area, the Bianagaloré_i§e.v»elopment Authority (BDA) had '._.proposed' 'to.constru.ctVV_Peripheral Ring road, which passed 'A'thr'oL:ig.h:V f.__?iovttig4er<e__ Tank bisecting the Tank into two seQ"rne'rits. 'V it Suresh Heblikar, an Environmentalist and others filed w.p. No.17823/1999 against the State of T Karnataka and BDA., seeking for a direction in the nature mandamus to the respondents not to divide the \JA/°>.

Gottigie»r'e Village and Gottigere Tank was taken out 4'an:d'~.V_'amaigamated into a new Planning Area of which -30- Gottigere tank as per the CDP and while disposing of the writ petition on 16.06.1999, it was ordered as fo|lows:-

"3. In view of the above circumstances, we feel it just and proper to issue a directir.3hi'*« :_. to the Respondents not to lay the...r.o4a:d_'-~./,"' bisecting the Gottigere Tank} 9

4. In the light of the ajbovpe, foiiowing Order: ._ V « ._ --

Respoindents - 'are direc;te.:i;jp....-not3--. to "lay" .any*-road bisecti__ng. the Gottigere » tank pr'e_vejnt.:ing"" »o_r=fjdist-urbirig the ..i.n.f_Iow' of, water' into_,,the tank. In 'case tiiteyéwant to lay a ring road. or?-am, "ot'i'i--er' road, it is 'open to 'tlj1e.n*i~..'_to.V"Iay any such road by' providing an overpass . ., without disturbing the free flow 'of wateréto the tank. However, ~ ;,fi.t is openvto them to dig up the

-up , tank"-,b_ed for laying pillars for _"iarovidi_i.1g the overpass. "

82.3. .._'It -isliurther averred that some areas including "i%':_t3M.1Cl€\PA is the Planning Authority and a new ODP was -31- prepared and approved and such approvai was conditional upon, inter aiia, the petitioner abiding by the Court in Suresh Heblii<er's case (W.P. No.17823/1999)g'- C 8.4 Ail chaiienges to the Project were nlegvatived the Hon'b|e Supreme Court andL"'t~h_e va'lid_.ity_oﬁ:th..e""FW'A and acquisition of the land was.------uph.ei'd_ by-'the...Hr:fn'ble Supreme Court.

8.5 The' i2es.p.o.hdeht¥«statef.'on 17/ 29.07.2006, acting t_hr.ou"gh'" 5i3e.c|*eta:ry; Development Department;. ,gV't'h:e""--.Ch'airman of BMICAPA, letter to revised the of the Peripheral Road _.near Giittigere Ta'ni:.V:tq_y'_'r:1odifying the ODP pertaining to ."p_i_ann'i«ng Dviistrictli-lo.4P. The realignment was purported to be "on"'a_ccoun"t_;--__inter alia, of certain contempt proceedings Vpendin'g"before' this Court and aiso allegediy on the ground tithe Caiignment submitted to the Ministry of Envliifolnnéent an Forests, Government of India, showed the C ~road"as passing over the tank.

\)-J .

-32..

9.1. it is averred that W.P. No.15973/2005 was filed before this Court by Gotttigere Village Panchayat seeking for decfaration that the proposal to construct-___a curved road around Gottigere tank was illegal and to the directions of this Court and to quash "

alignment approved by BMICAPA and.:fo1*--appoint_rneVntSofia, if Court Commissioner to ;__ensure_....t:h'at'-the roavd around Gottzigere tank was constlructedﬁ'A}st.'ric'tl.y:l'-as per the directions of thisgcourti.'in\.,~.A]¥.!5_.' dated 16.06.1999 and-~ti'J.,_.P1.....»l\l'o.4S3é_3--1/2G'O4Vzzlateldl 03. 05.2005. 9.2:I_The .sa:'r'if-..iwriltfpetition No.15973/2005 was disposed offon" observing that identical

4._contenti_onsif.had bee.nv_raised in W.P. No.17823/1999 and 'the CCir"lA1.',.€:~.'T1:tA|'l~'«.',l'_1'S have been negatived by order dated

16.'C~6'.'i1.9«99':'«'ar_n_d'V~1.'t'h.e same was challenged before the vHon'ble' Suvpireme Court and stay of the said order was byvvthe Hon'b|e Supreme Court and wherefore, as t_h_e'.m'atter was pending before the Hon'b|e Supreme S --Cou'r't, it was not appropriate to interfere when the matter 4V_".was pending before the Hon'b|e Supreme Court. It was \}u3.

-33- also observed that the primary grievance made by the petitioner therein (W.P. I\io.15973/2005) was the violaifiiony of the direction issued by this Court in Suresh case (W.P. No.17823/1999) and the proper rern_e'd'yiw§3f.S it way of contempt and those proceedingsiihad initiated by the petitioner.

1 0. 1 Gottigere' i it/iii-aigre 1 had a! ready filed c:.c.c. No.1623/200%-_"ag'ainst_:tti'e.V_resporid'ents therein

- State and was wiiiful disobedience.to"the:iV'1e1§A:rect_i:on]is'sue,dV_ this Court in W.P. No.17823:'/._1999 as the alignment approved forc'_gonstructi.oniirfé the road by skirting the _..(3ottiger}ie' tank was=..co_ntrary to the undertaking given by 'the State _tAh'at-.it"'~w_ouid construct the Peripheral ring Road bylstrai_ght"' vijitvhout obstructing free flow of water to the Tank, " ii0_.2VV"In view of the undertaking given by the respondent - State that the respondent had taken a "decision and issued necessary instructions to BMICAPA to /, \,1/5 -34- form and construct the Peripheral ring Road by straight iine without obstructing free flow of water to Gottigere Tank, the contempt petition was dropped against the State and the BDA., by this Court by order dated 22.12.20o--«5".v

10.3 However, since the order..4pas4sed'<""by4 Court had not been complied with, ap'p|ic*'ati'oVn the complainant in recalling the order dated 22.r1r2;'2oo5.f'i\iiahdr: Corridor Enterprises and Nandi Economic ___Co_rrid:or;3~:.;:_:'_E\n.te'i'priAses::rWi__i§mited (for ghort, 'NEG!'-IL' :)i.._Afiied impieading to come on record as theyrwere Vraotirarraigned as respondents in C.C.C. _..N.o.1623.§{'2"oo4 a'hd..tﬂ;;_heg,« also filed Review Petition ."i\i_o..A1:iv5«0_/:r.'Va'.C).t'Jt'§.-seelging for review of the order dated

22.ii1i2A';2.c»oS' o'astsed'ih c.c.c. No.1623/2004.

" The Division Bench of this Court by order djatedV"18'.04.2006, reviewed the order dated 22.12.2005 C ?ahd"reca:ied the same and restored c.c.c. No.1623/2004 the file of this Court since there was prirna facie case for \9./'r -35- having committed disobedience to the order passed by this Court, it was ordered that C.C.C. No.1623/2004 shall be posted for framing charges before the Division BeVn-ch assigned with the roaster of CCC (Civil). 10.5 But, the impleading Vapbiication "the, review petition filed by NICEL and NECVEI:.AwereCCrejeicted not maintainable. passed in c.c.c. No.1623/204i3'4v__dated'"1.8:.:Q¥i';2.iJOVti..Vancii;»"' in so far as it rejected the4..g§.%;Ap|'.i:§:a.:tio.nj_: f_or..1,,4m_im_pieva'diunonsfiled by NICEL and filed before the Hon'bIe -'Hon'b|e Supreme Court allowed thecsaid VS."ii_..F5'..VA'(Cj""_.»i§io.8189/2006 and directed that theappiicanttofin' 1.511/2006 in ccc No.1623/2004 Znﬂshaiii' as parties in the contempt petition. 10.6 Djiespite, before the said applicants - NICEL NECEL"cou|d file application before this Court in C.C.C. 4'_I:\io'.1..623'/;2OO4, the said C.C.C. was dismissed as it niwitrhdirawn as the order which had been alleged to have CC""«.rb'een disobeyed had been complied with. U4)' -37- interchanges, Toll plazas as per CFE order already issued by the KSPCB subject to the folIovv_iiafi_g..V_ condit§ons:

"(i) Necessary changesilshould 5b'e__ rriade , 'V to the Master Pian (ODP) 2 "

Government on 12.02.2004} to"- the Piannirlg Area of BMICAPA.

(ii) Changesiéiniadei' be brought to_ t.he'.i"_:g_ene"rai Pubiic through paper5Apiu--bIicat_iAo'i1.." C %'fhat..rbeingVfag:ig'riVevedtbv' the said order passed by the Governmerith§od_iify'.i_n'g.:'ti1e alignment approved on 12.02.2004, i'pet_itio.n'ers"v_ to 3 have filed W.P. zforV'H'q'u'ashing the said order dated that:

2 (i')''' .. alignment, which was approved on it 12.02';'.5_0O4 has been wrongly set aside in

--. "e.x.ercise of power under Section 14--A of the VEKTCP Act, because the alignment dated " 12.02.2004 had been approved by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ail India K,/' :22'~--.':2"'q'uashing of the order dated 04.11.2006 passed by the first

-39..

(v) the respondent-State having approved the _ alignment on 12.02.2004 which has been_,V"-.222 referred to and approved by the Division Ben~ci1-- of this Court as also the Hon'b|e Supreme Court, was estopped from chan~gin,g 0 alignment by order dated 4.1:'14.200e53a2rrrd1 same would amount toV,,disobedience ofvﬁzhie 2' order passed by the {)ivisl:c'5'ri, Benc-hhlof S Court and the Hon' tile Supre.me._C'ourt; 2 25

(vi) The change of aiign_me_n2t:2by"~sVett,ing--- aside the alignmers-tigiwai-pproved' is not in publ:icv':_:a'nd_ --.the same would m-eiudici1a2.:.I,yili_, ecology and envfro%nmen{tv_Vof"r:'f,Gottig.ere l.ai<"eV and taking all the facts 'intofAcorisideiration, the alignment dated 12,02.200?iAV.:h»a.d"_,»e»b4een approved and as the said alignmelnt would not in any way affect C§o.tti'gere |aké"'a'nd ._ '(viii event, the order dated A04.11__v.'20,0"6A is unjust, illegal and so mischievous as to cause grave and irreparable 2 prejudice to public interest.

311.4 Hence, the wt». No.3568/2007 for \/,2.

-40- respondent - State and for a direction to the respondents prohibiting them and their servants and agents permanently from acting pursuant to the Order dated 04.11.2006. State of Karnataka 2' it were arraigned as respondents 1 and:'2Min"t'he7wr-it However, on an application filed. _undei-..AO;"rder Ii:R.u.I'e'v 10 the CPC., by the writ petitioneirsy:"respon1:len't..'NoV.i3was impleaded on 02.04.2007'"*a'n-d application was filed by resporédelnt N:o'.'4"to; record as a respondent said'..a_pp.l.i_ca_tion wasmalso allowed by order dated "

12.1.1 "~-fT_he {fir'st'»respondent -- State has filed objectionsV"'statement*a'to_:'th:e"»..writ petition No.3568/2007 contending that thev.o.s--'de'r dated 04.11.2006, wherein the :_vj"'Governjm'en~t: has apxpro"v'e'd the change in the alignment of "road. "over Gottigere tank as required by ' BMI'C#.,§2A to_ the alignment of the road in conformity the '~originaE= alignment and in conformity with the ..oid'ersgipA_assed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme and the environmental clearance / approval given V,» .

-41..

by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) and the Karnataka State Pollution Controi Board (KSPCB). writ petition iacks merits and bona fides. 12.1.2 It is further averred that as pe.r"jthe.:AgTC.'{5'F=:é ~ of 1995, Gottigere Road was to goacross Tank in a straight line. The env:i'ronfrnentaif~.cieai'aVn:cej7T-i obtained by NICEL from the Mosréand Ksiécsrcr_i%tn_e<~vroia~a aiignment of peripéhierai Road is a part also was and over Gottigere no change could be made to :'t_he--. road. The order of the Division Bench_ofVth'is_Cou»'rt°i»n'4W.P. No.1'7823/1999 dated ._.1.6.06.J.if?:'9"9ii.is to "th.eiVVeffe:i:t that the road shaii go across over Gotti_qere Tank and on pillars / stifts. In W.P. NoT;"292*;a2_ui/i1é9_7_ SOMASHEKHAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF KA'uR"'NAT:A'KA;), the contention of Somashekhar Reddy *that there was aiready an outer ring road which he _'ci~aifned"A'to be a peripherai road and therefore, the T --:p:eri'phera£ road in BMIC project shouid not be taken up. T"q3.'i\'iICEL, which was a party therein fiied an objection UH/9 -43- Somashekara Reddy's case and are doing real estate business at the cost of the State and the poor farmers / citizens. If the road goes straight on Gottigere Tank,t-he petitioners cannot get lands to sell and wherefore, they seeking to have the road crooked / curved so "

could acquire more lands and sell the'm,.yco9jtra,ry--VI.to 'the. judgement of this Hon' ble Court. The.Vre'a_l is to enable the petitioners to da'a,b'ie,_%in real__ estate 've'n'ture at the cost of the State and theV,peor~fa'rmers A/'cttizetns of the State. T_he*-petiti~oner3_A_'Conduct and motive are so unfair and,atro~cio'u§;.;:__thatj"they«.a.r§:.5not entitled to any discretionary 0 rd évrﬁfo i isurt.

1,2,2" Etyvfurtlher averred that Dr. Chakrapani, Vt'wiacl:» eel No.17550/2006 seeking for the same reliefa'ls_Vso'ug'i_;t__fo:r'i.n this writ petition has been set up by the peti"tioners'.vThe CDP was originally approved by the Authority and the State Government also inc__liCated"that Gottigere Road was to go straight across the it Subsequent thereto, NICEL in order to save money l"'q3and for some ulterior motive, got the road to take a bend bv' -47- therein contending that the modification of the alignment that is now made as also the alignment of laying the road by constructing overpass by putting up pillars in bed would prejudicially affect the ecology..a'nd.'_;enyiro,nme.nt_ of the lake.

Chakrapani seeking for quashin_4g"'-.of--.._the."order dated 04.11.2006 passed by the"4-(§ovAe'rnr;j;eVlnt'~-and'for a direction to the respondents not toIeonstructthe'.'l=veri:ti~heral Road or any other road 44 on pillars or in a manner the ecology and environment {surrounding areas. The facts leading».to p'as--sVif:ii;j' order dated 04.11.2006 under Sefection Ital-Aof 'the'KTCP Act have been enumerated :"Vln"thegV_writ It is unnecessary to narrate the same infdeta_il facts have been enumerated while 0 Vv"n_arratin«g the facts in W.P. No.3568/2007. The impugned .._,.j'if"order Vd_ated---04.11.2006 is challenged in this writ petition f_fi!.ed,_Va's Public Interest Litigation petition on the ground '.tha.t----i:the alignment now proposed would affect the \,,/°> .

17.1 W.P. No.1755~fl_/2.0.06isfiled -48- Gottigere tank. The proposed Peripheral Road over Gottigere tank wouid involve construction of an over pass on pillars, width of which is said to be 754'"--MVeters:~ Construction of such a massive structure.i_nAthe taink.-'I,l':ed Gottigere tank wouid render the tank uin_fit"Vfo'r~--accl'ua:

and would affect the surrounding:"e.nviro'rlment,l'iv-hydirology of the tank and cause other adveArs--e:g'env'ironm'e'rita_ll impact. The impacts from raising"pillar__Vliiiit;h'i.n'Vf.':thVe= lake are as foilows:

- loss of wate*rly_ir:i_p.ou'ndmen_t arefa .

- surface soil d--is't_urbr:'n'cesl.' ~ V V' o problem' of figlluildli

- effectof the raises. in .vvate"rq._.turbidity o tremendous ,im'paactoniacquatic life iflilrrlpactlsliifrom l~aacl a're'ai'ancl the pillars over the lake are elntgmerua "$3" follows :

l '29 Losslof s.unli':gh:t indigence on more than 2/3'" of lake "water so rface ..././..:':v"'<9'V'-The ab"o.v_e impact may be extended on total water " «surface in lean months «o"--Loss'";of productivity by phytopiankton and *.s'ubsequent impact on food chain in the lake, fi_n?aIly affecting bird life.

Since the lake is a stagnant water body compared to a river due to the presence of huge pillars \)-/8- -49- within the lake area may result in excessive siltation which may lead to the death of the lake in a short span.

9 Degradation of Urban Aesthetics. 17.2 It is further averred in the peti.tiVon.gVtViia:t 0' W.P. No.17823/1999 disposed of Court has not stated that the PVeriphera~!._Ri-ng Rovad'..or«'an:"y."' 0 other Road should be constructed""Cn_'ly through"_"the tank by way of overpass and pillarVs:_~AA,¢iy"vqi_.,;e_'g':tion of this Court in the said ;_wr:t.i5etiti.gn§is."'that:t§o'tti.gere Tank should not be bisected slrtoulid not be affected.

It is furthér 'gayérreicili4"vth.avt..]..4_'the0'..'al'i'gﬂnment that is now proposed dated 04.11.2006 will cause large scare _i'rreyers'i.bié'environmental and ecological fharm, is .advers"e""to public interest. The impugned ordiergghaspassed in accordance with law. The xorder'.seem.s"t};>'fhave been passed only to save the

-..l.l'_;":V..con,cerned.___officials of the State, against whom the proceedings were initiated in .C.C.C. . V'V:"---i\i;ti.1_'f323/2004. The impugned order dated 04.11.2006 is b..s2 I -50- passed by the State without application of mind by the BMICAPA and wherefore, the same is liable to be set aside». 17.3 Respondent No.1 in W.P. No.17550/2--«0'0.6"~«{"--,_4 State has filed the statement of objections taking4"i--denTtic.all0 * contentions as taken in W.P. No.3S68/2.007. V 18.1 W.P. by the Elect?' 0|'1'|C' CW Interest Litigation petiitioh by the State dat_ed..._ has also been challenged. -.in0V.V'0""'W..:l§..»'v4"'--.l$l'o.3568/2007 and w.p. No.17550/20"0s6_. made for challenging the 4_.Said ordeVri'~in theﬂhstant case are identical to the Aaverrnentsv:rnade"~-i.n the above referred writ petitions. It is furtner\--._ave'r1re_d._ the order dated 04.11.2006 has not been passed infaccordance with the provisions of Section of__the"KTCP Act and the same is not in public interest ajndl"v.the":respondents may be d-irected to implement the 0 pi-eject for construction of peripheral road and link road as '\9.d» -51- per the ODP approved by the State by order dated 12.02.2004.

18.2 Respondents in W.P. No.17550/«2iooe"'--,ty have fiied objections to the said writ petitioil--- identical contentions as taken in'w;'ei?.,V No§3.=3oe/2oio'}*«;,yj"S-H 19.1 C.C.C. No.6-41/2o_o't3 is ?fi!ed*'byKEH.V. Vijayaraghavan, responden_t'e~.No_;_'3im§invi':'l£ii..%if;~--_No.3S68}2007 and his wife Smt. that the respondents being 'Chief to...i3overnment of Karnataka, Industrial Area Developmentllly it Special Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition Officer} KIADB (BMICPSS); nave wiiifuily disobeyed the direction =7is'soteq court iiii in W.P. No.2G729/2003 dated 1'8.t.'1i,?0G§;:"».;an4diis.:vtjhereby, committed the offence of . .a,y,y_yi«».conternpSt. V.I.t:"is'lVaverred that the compiainants are the owners of"la__nds in Sy Nos.104/2 to 104/7, in all measuring Guntas situate at Gottigere viliage, Uttarahaili . Bangaiore South taiuk. The lands were converted \;/9.

-52, for non--agricultura| residential purposes under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. After. obtaining necessary approvals, the land was and houses have been built. The fourth it issued an endorsement on complainants that the lands in 'questionLlwouldnot"st'an"d""

acquired for BMIC project. Basedlo'ri the sa.i_d"rafSsu"ivance, the complainants took up of the property by investing huge' portion of the property, Isl-teS__ imr.d ¢.aiiaes, who have already coril-'.3.t."_ residing therein. Initially, the to 104/7 were falling within the jur'isdiictioVn and after constitution of BMICéd5Ayr.the s'a'idV:lvancls are now within the jurisdiction of -.'iih~e__B.D.A., by exercise of its power vested unde~rVt--he of the KTCP Act, had formulated a V 'COP. lift "envisaged formation of a Peripheral Ring :._The" said proposed ring road was to cross the Gott'ig:ere:Tank in a straight line. L23 -53- 19.2 It is further averred that in W.P. No.17823/1999 by order of this Court dated 16.06.1999,;Ti'tg was specifically ordered that the Gottigere tank shou.|_'d_A» be bisected and in case, the State wants to lay_rin?g-..:roaAd~ori 0 any other road, the authorities wereIg»iy:er1..Vt'h_e J laying such road by providii':tg:Vg'*--~..axn §'Ac'>'\.'Ve_':'l3*'-.'V$§v] disturbing free flow of water to th.e.l:Vtagn_k;-.__Au.thoritiges..ii/vere also allowed to dig up th'e'.t:he_Vpurpose of laying pillars to support the the Said alignment was _.v_th--eV of certain influential peripheral road to take a curye side edge of the tank bed. Noticfication_wa:s"is'sued by KIADB under Section 3(1) of4.§th'ei*~KIADiB"~-00? Oh 24.01.2003 for acquisition of lAia_ndsg,n.wriicl1»A.iiz«cVlu~«ded the lands in Sy Nos.104/2 to 104/7 belong'i.ng to connplainants. The same was following by Va. notific'atio~--n.u'nder Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act dated The said acquisition of land by the KIADB wjas"'V.VneCessitated due to the change of alignment of 0 --perip"heral road near Gottigere tank. The complainants along with the mother and brother of the first complainant K.» in -54- filed W.P. Nos.20729 to 34 of 2003. In the said writ petitions, this Court: by order dated 02.05.2003, has observed that proper remedy for the writ petitioners is__t_o file contempt petition and wherefore, the contempt pe.ti"tio_'n_:"_A is filed by the complainants.

19.3 In the said conterhp't:'petitiongniotioeg was issued to the respondents};:..._.":'-- _ 0 , 19.4 Application b.y_:l'th.iex.,oomplainants in CC: No.641[~2'006- fort'.iw.itlj§jrawaI of the contempt had given up the proposalfogr belonging to the complainants as 'an: had been given by the State that peripner'a|_if.oad_ would be constructed over the ._'j'G'ottigere* la>,._A£<.:e.~.._ jE'hexsai'd"application was disposed of with a dVirectEVo_n'.."(complainants to seek appropriate 0 .v.,clarif.ic.a;ti%on the Hon' ble Supreme Court. Civil Appeal ..'_,'_;.,..l3lo.,911/2008:. (arising out of SLP (C) No.756S/2007) and .ci'§%i'it,:Aippeai No.912/2008 (arising out of suv (C) 0' V-3...No.7V§§67/2007) were filed before the Hon'b|.e Supreme \5i.J>.

,55- Court. In View of the submission made on behalf of the NICEL that the authorities of the State of Karnataka been passing orders de--notifying the lands acquisition proceedings taking shelterniné proceedings, which in view of the:"i4yea:'r'iie'r passed by the Hon'b|e Suprerneﬁowurt s"nould_V be impermissible and in View of tyh.eu:f'a.ct'i-that.thegonfiipany had already filed separate "writ--.petitionichallienging the de- notification of the_lan__ds iberore-fyth'e..':'vai+iigh. the said civii appeais were.4__diAisp'ose:d_of._by iion'b|e Supreme Court by vorde_r""tdVate--i;i:'_ it has been observed foliox/VvVs'V:l':"-If" - l " 'Keeping-_ the facts and circumstanxces,".+ofA'thVisi case, we dispose of both:__T'th%ese"*a.pbiea!s observing that it _ .' "wou§ic£.he«--..Vopen to the High Court to 'V atsgpese fo-ff" the application of HM. Vuijiayaragyhavan for withdrawal of the .V contérnpt petition, but, before doing so, he the High Court wouid appiy its mind as " fregards implication thereof vis-a-vis other proceedings pending before it. " (emphasis llsuppned) VJ-

-55- 19.5 In view of the above said order i-ion'ble Supreme Court, the contempt petition as4"aisoSy:'th'e"ié A * application in the contempt petition are..hear$_d the writ petitions.

20.1 Learned seniorcoufnvseiappearing the petitioners in W.P. No.3S68"f2ﬁ0~O7~

(i) the V irl1fJi$'gl'l'ed" ._'<__o'rder:"" 'dated 04.1 1.2003' pajsgseay by itné .B_"M_ICAPA.~: is illegal and without ri"s"d'ictionTf; S y. A

(ii)" oop dated 12.0v2_2'O04', been approved and confirmedypby Bench of this Court and' the Hon'._ial'e' Supreme Court could not be A set a--side*._by thvewfirst respondent -- State in exesreicnse osofyﬂpower under Section 14~A of the

- yk*ifcP"A§:t __ A " ..V_(Aiii) the material on record would A_ci'e~ariy show that the originai authority, 'U'-ZBIWICAPA has not initiated any proceedings for Vichange of aiignment and only on the basis of \»/"a No._A3568/2007 has taken us through the various -57- the direction issued by the State Government, which was facing notice in contempt proceedings;

(iv) the impugned orider 0 04.11.2006 is not passed in ac4cor-daznc'ea.,.w-§th-4' V iaw and materiat on record wouid----sh'ow that 0' is not in the interest o'f...4'g:'"justice u.and.gj'thVe;V"""

impugned aiignment asAp,..or'd.ere.d b'y~-tAhe,.5 Government in exerciiisze {its under Section 14-A of the ;§'r'c%P Ajc't ::by'«..o'rfcfI1e§r'fdated 04.1 1.2006, «*wO:i_:id prej'udi.cia»f'i'_':,4_ Vg v'affe'ct the _ ecoiogy --t'heVv$otti'gere lake;

and .

.i"'(v).._j1g:he"'§resp*ondents'*were not at an justii?§ed~. in asiidethe afignment, which had alceadpy'bee'nA'--ap'proi}ed by BMICAPA on 12AV.0V2.200a'!- wherefore, the impugned o:ré«.!.er__is fiabie" tone. set aside. V. Learned senior counsef for the Petitioner 4--preceed3'hgs that have taken ptace between the parties as ' ithe annexures produced in the writ petition and \,.xt .

-59, counsel has taken us through the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Aii India Manufacturers' Organization's case as also the Hon' ble Supreme Court.s:i'n_i'~i-av the said case and the averments made i"

No,15973/2005 and the reliefs soughttherein"a"n'd':furti'1e'r.V submitted that the writ petition is entiti.ed1'_t_'oi~be:a~I|o".yed:.V'

22. The impieading VAy_a:opi.i_ca.nAts _€W.P. No.3568/2007 submittevdjih'C--ha5._fi:~.1$3lh/Youkiiéﬁment for construction of peripherai-""ro.ad; any way affect the ecoioigyvifyoii ti:-iottigere take and they are invyterested:"ir;i1: Learned counsei appearingifor--.the.VVinzpieadi'n'p:a--~ppiicants submitted that the oniy interest the to see that the Gottigere __Eake is.§{not*. destroyevd and does not suffer from any A'e_coEo:gi..c_Vai _Vor.%e4nvironmenta| probiem by construction of 23.1"" Learned senior counsei appearing for 're.spo:n'dé'nt No.4 in W.P. No.3568/2007 submitted that:

\/-5» -50-

(i) NICEL has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 04.11.2006 as per the original FWA entered into between the NICEL and the State Government;

(ii) the proposed road to A constructed by NICEL would not touch th'e"ia~!{§ » and the proposed periphera|1»'roa.d4T' :iSu'._Bl24_."a_4' distance of 2 Kms. from the Gott'i'gere_llakedﬁnd». «. "

the alignment approved BMICAPATV 12.02.2004 is contrary to _:ije».cpFw_A an'd.._F_VVA 3 has not been amended';._

(iii) in sview of o*b.s'e_rQa'tiot€S"'rnade by this Cou%_rt"aj:jnidV Hon' b'le.:j'S:£'Jpr.erne Court in the V"'l§fla.:1ufacturers' Orgavln--izwati'on"s**:case,.j:' there--.--.is..'*a direction to impl:g'mentﬂtVH--EV a..5::"grjg-in'a|ly conceived and in the "proposed peripheral road wo_u"i".:l notin a~nl'y'~~way affect the Gottigere lalétevas the peripheral road is at a distance of 2 t.l{vnis.'"fror*o"Gottigere lake; peripheral road, which was As'h._own"i.n.3'ACDP., 1995 was a road to be constructed by the BDA., and the proposed 2 road to be constructed by NICE has been l"-illelgally shifted to the peripheral road which 'VJ, :_.-'modifica'tioEn:orv_arnehdmg«the FWA and wherefore, the writ be dismissed as sought for in the _Vapp'Iicationvv.fiIetij_bythe fourth respondent. Learned senior if...__gtzogunselaxh.asa:talten us through the observations made by iflonjble Supreme Court as a-lso the Division Bench -51- was shown in the CDP of 1995, by collusion of the planning authority - BDA and the Government with NICE; and

(v) the road as proposed in FWA i"

itself been shifted and as per proposed in the FWA, the roa:dNw'ould"'no-t any way affect the Gottigere |al<e_a:n..'dA'theiroad, A. is at a distance of 2 KmsiV__v'from the:la.ke",a'n'df--- the impugned order wou|dHi"'n'ot_V'in a'nyu:iwayvV; affect the writ petitioners. _ 23.2 Learned taken us through the conte.n.tsVof F\iiliA conte.nVdeCi~t'hat Gottigere lake is not at "F.:\i'._iA and even in the environmenta'l'reiJort;""Go-tiiigere lake is not mentioned}._' "ffhejiailigntnieintfofperipheral road to be constructed 'been illegally changed without \9./5- -52- decision of this Court in All India Manufacturers Organization' s case,

24. Learned senior counsel appearing respondent No.3 in W.P. No.3568/2007, who is.-'also:the':

first complainant in C.C.C. No.64:/2096' would concur with the submission of. the"llear'ned..seni'o'r«._;°W counsel who has made submissio~n_"o.n> behalf, No.4 that the peripherai._.road,-as."_:~sh'own .lin'v.t.he.~E FWA originally conceived and h'a_s7bveenVi'.':ap:p'roved by this Court and the HQI1.'f:Abl._e been illegaily changed and not at all in picture in beliconéstructed by NICEL as per the is" at a distance of 2 Kms.

from the Gott4i.ge,reVV' per the FWA. The iand v4..vbeEong.irig'vt_o Responde__nt_No.3 in sy. Nos.104/2 to 104/7 in Go'tti_gere'«viilage__was not at all proposed to be acquired V as oiriginoalx alignment as shown in the FWA and oniy because ofxsthe change in aiignment at the instance of is unsustainable in the eye of law, the land ~b.b2|o'no'ino to the third respondent was sought to be \/-9.

-65- by constructing a road skirting the Gottigere lake on southern side would in any way affect the Gottigere.«jlai{e.,V"'~,_ which has been approved by the Government';V-iohiéfthen recommendation of BMICAPA, by order dated: has become final as challenge to unsuccessful. " V w_ "

27. Section 14--A of the'g_l'<arnata'l<a"Town and Country Planning Act, which power, impugned order has been in the present case reads 'a«sjfo|lo=ws;----» use from the Master" time after the date on which' the for an area comes intc...Qperation,"the'PIanning Authority may, previous' approval of the state allow such changes in the ._ "iiaVnAd"ti's.e oIr"".development from the Master Al'-"ian * it may be necessitated by topog"l*aphical or cartographical or other _ 'errors and omissions, or due to failure to "'..V'fu'i'ly indicate the details in the plan or changes arising out of the implementation DJ.

-55- of the proposals in Master Plan or the circumstances prevailing at any particular time, by the enforcement of the plan:

Provided that -

(a) all the changes arejn i' Interest;

(b) the changes proposediicioi lzotiﬂi contravene any "of 't_l_1'e .

provisions of thisy_..A'ct._ or any«___ other law ,. 'go.verriing" 'planning, development or met ofijiarid within the local planning *areaj;"a*nd_.~._

(c) ,the._f' pro=pos__al...' for all.. ___s§Jch changes 5;ja_r.e ~pju_blishe.d fin one or more,-dai'§y*--.new.spa.pyers, having __c_igrc'ula'tiol,:_1V .n_"r_h'e "area,_§'inviting object-i§n':;"fro'm'the _piJblic within a,period'=of<not.g'less than fifteen 'clays fromf_i't,he«.._date~~ of publication as may' be »- specified by the _ _ Planning. Aidthgriify.

The provisions of subsections (2) :a_nd"$ection 14 shall apply mutatis 'gm-u'tanc/r'Sj~: the change in land use or d'evel-opmént from the master plan.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained inthe Act, if the change in land use or development is from commercial or \5?«/w -57- industrial to residential or from industrial to commercial and the stipulated fee is paid and the Local Planning Authority is informed prior to effecting the change, the permission for such change of land use or development be deemed to have been given. " (emphasis supplied) _

28. Interpretation of the above said Sec'tion"iiadA come up for consideration befoiresthewlliioVri'Vble'v:'$i.gprem§3 Court in S.N. CHANDRASHEKAR Alj4\_ll'iD,::Al\cl§)'i'l-l'E:"P.:l_\i/s. S?l"ATE or-' KARNATAKA AND OTi-iE.RS_ (zooevli "(v3;}:'suy'preme Court Cases 208), wherein they.e»-Hobs' ble sglpeee Court has analyzed the :14?.A"'o'f" the KTCP Act and has observed ~ A A "19.v"~._ into force of Section'*-- __14-VA" of' Act contained two prr;-v--isions"for"enat§|ing change in land use.

"i-':h"e definition of' **** "land use' indisputably will ' Vl"nave--v.to~lbeV«read with the Zoning Regulations. set-gzoli 14(1), as it then stood, of the V Act ..p'i'ovided that every change in land use we and every development in the area covered by Plan subject to Section 14A shall conform \51..3 -53- to the provisions of the Act. Section 14(2), however, provides that no such change in land use or development shall be made except with the written permission of Planning Authority which shall__""'i3,,eii,ii'V. L"

contained in a commencement"certificate it in the form prescribed. Section 'provides' for the procedure required. to"b_e" follo»v'\}ed.:4'V_ where the Planning Authoreity» is re'qu_ir'e.cl'-Ito}, pass an order in terrns oft-"Se{;tio'n.,_14 of"*t.heV:

Act. So far as ch.:-ingeg-_. ipf '4lajr:d'lu_se or development from Atfhe""'~..' V ":V~-'Outline Developmen't««,..l?lanigis gc'.:$ncern'ed,_.__t:l1e same would be toTthe"--"_p'if§icedure laid down in 14--.A was Act. Outiine DeveV|opnifA:e'n'r_;_«.VPlan, _a_- "one time Plan, evideiratllyi.sci}-section..V(2).:'of Section 14 had no applicati'o.n. .It'is that purpose Section 1}4_{jA had introduced. Section 14-A . .Vcateg'ori"ca_Ily states that change in the V VIa"nd'j'u_se4"e.rdevelopment from the Outline l*e.oeveio,:m¢.nt Plan must be necessitated by :».(i')='topographical or cartographical A, or other errors and omissions; (ii) due to .,:failure to fully indicate the details in the "",Plan or changes arising out of the "implementation of the proposals in Outline Development Plan; and (iii) \)..J~ -59- circumstances prevailing at any particular time by the enforcement of the Plan.

21. The proviso appended to Section 14-A enumerates that : (i) such changes-'f'"'-V"'''' '' should be one in public interest; (ii) 'V' changes proposed should not contra.v.e_n~e"Vi"' any of the provisions of th'eimAct.to.r any Vi other law governing 7..p'i'annin'g.,_ _ " it development or use of_'!.andi'wi'thVinfth~ev..._ local planning area; and the pi-olpovsalilg for all such changesarepubiiéisyh-eti in one"

or more daily 4"'lnewsf1avpe'rs_,~,:ihaving circulation inethe a.rea,invitingi"'ol§je'ctions from the sp.i:;l:¢,plgsi.n;'gerci;j¢niss and (3) of Sectioiniiwlé" Act--,ai=e_ :.epVp--lyicable mutatis muta.nd»i.sA'f:_o' :''the_ land use or deveVl_opmeint'--".frorm gt'hve"~..Quti.'ine Development Plan. '*Sub~sectio.ihv.i(i').:::"of""Section 15 provides that oni'*-«..revceViVp_t the application for pei;.rnis~sion xu'hdier____ASection 14, the Planning «Austho:rityz_shall cause an enquiry to be .mad.e'»--._vvh'e-rveupon it may either grant or .' refuse.aﬂcommencement certificate. Sub- sécuong of Section 15 raises a legal fiction .. as regard failure on the part of the Planning it 'VAdAthority to issue such certificate, as by treason thereof such certificate would be \,t)' -72-

29. The validity of the impugned order dated 04.11.2006, which is impugned in the writ petitions hasto be considered in the light of the above said interp.retat:i'oen'V;~ of Section 14-A of the KTCP Act with refere_nce::.toifthei 0' it contentions of the learned counse'|M"a'p'pe_a'ring parties. Scrutiny of the materiai on record wogiJ"ly€l:'cleari=y"= show that after the FWA was entered into_V_b~ettveen'VVthe Government of Karnatakaﬁand .i\i'f['C'fE:Lj4on-,Q3.O?lfi'997, for implementation of4_i-"WA, se'pa~i5a:te_:'Authority i.e., Bangalore My:_sore4__ Area Planning Authority On the application given by NIGEL alignment for Peripheral road, recommenldatilon.'was.:rf_.ilade by the office of the Chief

4...E.ngine,eij'v i'~C0mmu--nicatiAc.-ns and Buildings (South), ABangaloregji~A.and*t.h_eme approval to alignment was granted and~.tlie« communicated with the approved valignmlént the Project Co-ordinator, BMICP, by letter as per Annexure 'A' to the writ petition .'Njo.3S68/2007. Thereafter, notification was issued A --«'u'n'd'er Section of the KTCP Act and objections were lalhlcalled for. After considering the objections, the Km :.'j'xbYv..th@':...|:3iVi.i5.i0nnBeniCih"**of"this Court on 24.06.2005 and it W.P..'N_.o§i17$2t§,?V_1:§99 decided on 16.06.1999 and the said wasii';.pending consideration before the I-£on'bie Court. The operation of the order dated F' i~'j,~di-_i6.06.1999 passed in W.P. No.17823/1999, wherein, a -74- "i. A writ, order or direction in the _ nature of mandamus to the Respondents not to".._:*-. divide the Gottigere tank as per Annexure plan.

ii. A writ, order or direc._tio.n the respondent authorities to preserve A' Gottigere tank and water res:o'u,rcesV. of.t'i".e, _';7aid, i tank.

iii. A writ, order tori"direetsiiiiizto the respondents to_"VVd'iVst'u;r'o:' 'the_ e-n=,,«.ironment round about ' it ..iv, :;,.'_otri--e'r -.a'Dpr--o,p.riate writ, order or d.vireet.io'n'i'<as.__::the'«Hon__'bie Court deems fit inc|ud'ing'*the' W.P."

Theabove referred W-.P.'-._NVo'.">i5973/2005 was disposed of 'identical contentions had been raised in K UV'

-76..

No.17823/1999 (Suresh HebIikar's case) dated 16.06.1999 has been confirmed by the Ho§i"'bi--e"'--VV' Supreme Court.

30. The l-ion'ble Supreme Manufacturers Organization' s referred'. 9' while considering the qu_estionVAy__oi:"fess.._»jud.i.cata._ahcl the constructive res judicatay which':wcl:La'lj.du"béfi:_a,«ppl_icable to the facts of the presentcase in' of W.P. No.17823/199:9, dfithe order dated 1.2.O2.20OJ4_ that the petitioner cannot rel?-ﬁgitatei'"the_:iy'vay|'id».i«ty----__of-'the said order and has observed as foi_l0wsf'--' behind Explanation IV is .broiu;:_Vi'lf.ii;.v"oAl,i't._in the pithy words of Wigram, "V_..'C. in .He.i_1derson v. Henderson as follows:

""The plea of res judicata applies, except in special case (sic), not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly U13'

39. -77- belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonabie diligence, might have brought forward at the time."

In Greenhalgh v. Mallard (herein.ai_°i:er':.A.C."' in "Greenha|gh"), Somerveii L.J. ob"ser'ved_ thus«: . a._:o;a _p it :V'a.pprovAv'i.ng!vA:y'~-referred to by this Court in State or iiav-wab Hussain . Combining all these principiesijaiwnConstitution Bench of this Court in % Dire.ctW.Recruit, Class 11 Engineering Officers' C " Association v.

A' g_V'e><.p'ounded on __?Forward Construction Co. (supra) by hoiciing that:

.c!.ear'iy_ "co'£i:!:Cl._ ha_\"/e__'been.. V raised that it would be'1.arn.aba.ise of the process ':_of: 'th.e'=CoAurt_ 'to_ 'aiiow a new 3_.':Fhe_judg"rne.n.t«'in Greenhaigh (supra) was "I think that on the a'uthorities"to which I wiil refer grit.-_g'w-otiid be"

accurate to sa__y"V~,_tha_t res" «j_u.d'i'cata for this purpose'i'su~noi:_¢:*oi1fine:c:i. to the issues which ._the icourtﬂjis-V-~ actua|!y_'as__keci:to "decide«,.fbut I that it cov;ers':;»giussiie:S oir *fact's_w--h'5'ch_..are soc!eariAy,..';'.pai*t __of.. t.t..1'e-Q subject ma"tter:"Df the"=!.itiq'a-ti.on',and so proceeding be__sta~rted in respect orrhem--"u State of Maharashtra the principle laid down in \,9--J> ,79, Vs. ALI. INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION OTHERS ((2096) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683). decision of this Court in W.P. No.17823/1999_j(su'R:ESi~£ HEBLIKAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE_O.F..KAR_;\iATAi%rAIANOV ANOTHER) dated 16.06.1999 has also be*e,~.§'ui;5het~d j'ibv"

HOn'bie Supreme Court. The"vIan~5.i.ditv'v-of the'..:oii§_c_'ie.r.. A the Government dated;__D4.1it._ii)ii.6"wi_lnp.ij§ned the writ petitions has to i::Vhe_v|i9ht Of the observations me-den by~"'tii.ef:: of this Court and the in the cases referred V___toVv' 'scope of power conferred authority, BMICAPA in this case, of the KTCP Act.

e .:;"«--..vThe scrutiny of the material on record that the impugned order dated 94.112006. passed in violation of the directions by" the Hon'bIe Supreme Court while '_'_c&~_onfir'rn:ing the Division Bench decision of this Court " Ifin-»'1)A:.L INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION, BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS U4/>.

baverments, it was contended by the learned senior counsel observed "para 33 of the judgement in All India Hit'Vi'-éfswainrufactuvrers 0rganization's case (2005 (3) Kar. L.J. .'.4i_.3 8'): asiollows:

-82..

water which is in contrary to the orders of the Court and which would also destroy the old courses and channels which would bring water into the lake. '!'he Lake Development Authority has also inspected this lake found that the deviation of the would threaten and destroy'thie~~lake.'van.d 3' _ is conducting a detaiiedfinalysisofgthislwuw 3' The petitioners submitp_...th"vat"'..the 'Ge-arnaii Panchayat of ' Goti:igi.are«._ hasvi'. also.:' passed a resolution seeking lake and its inﬂow. chA_an§ne«ls...V"7fIt_uhas sought that the :"iake:._*;'.bej.:pr'ote¢::te'd yet the authori:ti.es'.. Egret oh this. The Resoiluitvionifvof xlitheiji'=§Sottig_ere Panchayat is produced a 3 _Anin-eX'u V"1"nLVVthe': light of the above referred ab'pea'iEi_ngVV"fo'ri»-._th;e"i..said writ petitioner, which has been \y._R \ -33- "33. Another grievance projected by the petitioners is that Nandi in order to favour some politicians had changed the original;wk'-«..ii'~ alignment of roads thereby destroying Gottigere lake which would adversely affect"t.hev "

ecology of the area. The:~-ii'ea'r--ned7_4 counsel referred to the Division'A:iBe:§ich*i'order of this Court in Sure-sh Heblik'a-{'5 caselto cofatlendi! it that the alignment now m'ad:e"i»by Nandi"-woulV"d;' violate the said order,' There is_:'no'*-rneritilin-this: contention. We l'1"aV:vee. 'go?he'4"t!j'vr;o'u.gh the order passed by_...th_is .i¢c:ur't'~vVhiriifﬁuresh Heblikarfs ' ease end; §i~hd'«.t'§§at.. eytiirection had been toZ_t.h'e._res;'}ond»ent therein not vt_Q_la'y.yea*:iV§f;;._f9a.d' the Gottigere tartk t--h:e~«'.'_i__nf¥evv' of water into the "ii-aka.' The':_itf.2ou.rt'-ftérther directed that in case«.__an.y 4'roatl'M:_ruas constructed, there should be"'an:ove:1-pass without disturbing V "free'~"flo'w__of water to the tank. No materia! V g'h'as:'been"i'pgla'c;ed on the record to show that the ".é'a-iignvmenitieas made by Nandi for the execution at the 'Project will bisect the lake for will in any ewayvvaiifect the inflow of water to the lake". The .y:r'nere ipse dixft of the petitioners cannot be accepted particularly when the same has been i denied by Nandi. We may, however, observe that Nandi while making alignment of \S2~i' .84.

reads through that area wiii keep in view the directions issued by this Court in Sure-sh HebIikar's case. "

32.3 The above said decision of the_;e'Di~Q.isi.o:ri~1' Bench of this Court in All India iY!anLl_fact'L:i:r:ersi» Organizat§on's case and J. Madhuswa_my.'..sA ::_aS,e':(20:O'S». Kar.L.J. 438) has been confirmed th'e._l'-ion' Court in STATE or KARNATAKAli'l'A:§l'D_ANoTi§i2ui veg. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS :Jc'~RGJ$\,N];:ATId_N'gAND HOHTHERS ((2006) 4 supreme couVr:V:i"caeesf,' 6'8v,3.')',i~:V..'jwherein, the Hon'hie Suprem_e4'Cj;oiuVrt.:has:_"§n...5para 62 of the judgement as €fo||o:wsVV.:V .

H 6'-2; it-hjeseé'Circumstances, we find no reason=._to llinterfere' wi't.h"'t'he said directions of the High "CQiurt...'~In °thé':future also, we make it _ .:_le.ar_._tha_t whi"levv-the State Government and its _V » V1"instrumerita.l§_ties are entitled to exercise their _*-cQnt'ra't:t,daljrights under the FWA, they must do sc.faji.i"iiy, reasonably and without maia _» fidesfiin the event that they do not do so, the " Courts will be entitled to interfere with the i 'same.

uhﬁ.

-35- Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in All India Manufacturers Organization' s case as follows:

" The High Court merely directed -1' Project and the FWA, as conceived origin.a'i=l.y"'«i.V"

and upheld by the High Court Reddy (supra), should be iné«;,;ie:;-.rieint(:écs--(Fin, letter and spirit". In oth_er.__words,' the Court said that there is nolhscope for raisingﬂ frivolous and maiaiide objlectriondfor ulterior purposes." if C ' 3 V 2 C 32.4 The oji'v:.sion::fAaVe'n;;a Cciuurt in All India Manufacturers; "case ':has_ clearly negatived the contention.TA'th.at'3iexcess'--..vlaénd*~has been acquired to benefit BMI_C"projectfanld.th~is""fi_'nding is confirmed by the E-lon'bie su;5'rep5e (mi (2005 (4) scc 683) and _..-Hon'b_!e3,Su_pre(me.i Co.urt)_)has specifically observed in paras V'7§'a:ncl .77«.of'~the:'ju.dgement as foiiows:--

.;76-. The next contention urged on AA behaiffof the landowners is that the lands .vve_re not 'being acquired for a public purpose. counsel who have argued for the landowners have expatiated in their contention UR} -85- by urging that land in excess of what was required under the FWA had been acquired; land far away from the actual alignment of t,h.e_i. road and periphery had been consequently, it is urged that'even.'_'.ifﬁt'hi34 it implementation of the High»way"'aPfro«je,ctl. assumed to be for a public: purpose,"acqui,si-t.ionl ' of land far away therefroni.,.,,w~ould 'not.Vam_"oun't, l to a public purpose nor wou.!d:"l't..b'e.._cov'e"red_,by} the provisions of thVe'«.l.{EAD'é._Ac,t;Vv "

77. _1i~§;V our i an entirely misconc§ei'v"ed_ pointed out in the lpialifgoF:'_:our'::§judgment, the Projelctlm " isiiﬂ ani injtegratedlylllllv infrastructure deve'lopme'nt merely a highway project";'e,__4The'" it has been styled, conce_i.ved.V implemented was the 'i,:3.a:ng.a».lore-; Mysore Infrastructure Corridor ' -iProje.ct,c_which conceived of the development 2AV'o--f,iro'adS-._between Bangalore and Mysore, for whicifa' tlﬁere were several interchanges in and around the periphery of the city of Bangalore, together with numerous developmental "'v-V'i"n'frastructure activities along with the highway at several points. As an integrated project, it may require the acquisition and UK/5.

-89- ali applied its mind and has simply obeyed the direction of the State in view of the contempt petition fiied against the officials of the State alleging disobedience to the direction issued by this Court: in Suresh Hebiikar's case. 35.1. It is a well settled law statute prescribes a particular': manner for.__':cioin'g"__aV'} particular act, that act must belt£.o:rte in aione [TAYLOR vs. TAvLoR'{..(::1s76) 2..c'i-Lo. }i;_2s}]. 35.2. y frneiiiiiilla stove .;wei:ii; settied position is constantly Courts also without anv Court in KUNWAR PAL SING!-I (volano vs. STA'fE or UTTAR pmuziesti Anoornins reported in ((2007) 5 scc __ Statue Law - When statute p~res.cribes a particular manner for doing A' particular act, that act must be done in it that manner alone.

Xx xx

16...... There is no option left with anyone to give up or waive any mode U»), -93- and all su¢:h modes have to be stri¢:t|y resorted hr. The principle is well settled that whare any statutorv Provifi9_#iV:'V"'- llrovidas a Particular manner for doiﬁia 3:'. ~ particular act, then, that thing_---.3: « must be dona in accorcﬁﬁnéd' manner prescribed th§rafor_':_:i--.the A£:t."'~ . «. "

"l__v'{~gmphaslVs 35.3. In the instalzi .c§§le--, 14-A of the KTCP Act, in the case of S.N. Awewea Vs. STATE or Supreme Court Casea

293), the BMICAPA cannot be intruded ..intarf_ar'gad"§;iiith, by 'any other authority, thé'-ﬁisvemment also; because, thu m¥aVﬁne:*v.,4ln:V'tQ{hich a duty is to be performed by the;

B!i§lICAPlX%Illda: well laid down by the Statute under psection lzgaég of the new Act.

A. The authority concerned viz. NIIICAPA dliqhéd shall do it in the mannesr prwribad under " Sdction 14-A of the KTCP Act, in ordar to follow the A staps prescribed thereunder for reaching the rasult; M' -95- road as per the alignment in ODP approved by the Government on 12.02.2004 by shifting the proposed peripheral road to the alignment meant for formation~"*0f road by B.D.A., ; the peripheral road as per the to pass 2 Kms. away from the Gottigere lake 0 not pass near the Gottigere lake 'of:

amendment of FWA, the said alignrnenlt__could'_»not. been approved by the Gover*n':r"r.~ent 12.02.2004 and the sam"e__ is iiletgielljeh-d.#'wherefore, the petitioners cannot challenge"thteiiordieiri.V"Ft.gi'ssed by the Government t.£i'l(1l:el"'LSV(-f.'CtiC)1l"lVV' Act as they are not interestelgi.pai*tV1.ee.,'~.;,-is?it from the material referred l'sa'i'd'v-"tquestion cannot be permittedylto be stage by the respondents in the writ pets'-tion petitioners challenging the :_..-"i'mpdg._n_e»d order dlate«d..._.0-4.11.2006 and in view of the fact V.that;"t'i1e_ to the order dated 12.02.2004 on similar"glrodnld'sj_ been rejected in the writ petition filed beha.lf;W._0f' Gottigere Village Panchayat in W.P. V4'_l~l0;1xV5Vi9'3?.3/2005 by order dated 24.06.2005, as referred to 'above.

U445

-99..

required for constructing the peripheral road as per the alignment approved on 12.02.2004 and the questionw--.o_'fL"'.._ disobedience to the direction issued by this COui'fei;*lnv'\,/:ll:V;.§'.'.';' A No.20729/2003 dated 18.11.200S_.~as_4 alleiglieid*:'.'j,i»n'."the contempt petition would not arise. 'fhe considering the Memo for w'ith'dr3awai"-of petition would not arise and Ath.e"v.samge "dispo,sed of accordingly.

41. Accovrdlngly, impugned in W.P. jj'iil;yi:?.s'seo}2ioi;l6rAand 12507/2007 dated ocil;'11'.i2edI5 i:be"'state is liable to be quashed in said reasoning, it is unnecessary i"toV_"isSVu=ei"v.any further direction in W.P. ._j"l\io_.125107/_2007. and other writ petitions and the contempt .petitioT_n',' ..cl.C;;lc"lib;'s41/2005 is liable to be dismissed and passltheifolloyliiingl Order:-

W.P. Nos_.3568/2007, 17550/2006 and 0 12507/2007 are allowed;

W -100-

(ii) The impugned order passed by the Government dated 04.11.2006 quashed;

(iii) Contempt Petition- CCC_Nye.,641,f200"€§:','Ieig dismissed and the i_\|0.641/2006 are dis¢:harge'd,_'V-H0wee~§ter[ ' "

there shall be no orde~rd4L:.z--"3'».3»to eoet.' /K H ustice sd/...

0 Judge suméa V' 'i_\rI'd»e><:: YE;/N6/H.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court