Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In the case on hand, looking to the materials, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 that, even earlier also, when the amendment was brought in the year 1991, and when it was challenged before this Court, the same was set-aside and subsequently, the Karnataka State Legislature rectified its mistake and again brought the proposed amendment as the buildings constructed are contrary to zoning regulations. Again it was challenged by filing the writ petition before this Court and the offending portion of the building namely 6th, 7th and 8th floor of the building was directed to be demolished, which came to be affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequent thereto, Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regularisation (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, was enacted by the State Legislature, which resulted in regularisation of offending portion of the buildings in question. The validity of the said enactment was challenged wherein the validity of the Act has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the building that has deviated the zoning regulations may be regularised by the State Government as an authorised construction. Even in the statement of objections, the respondent State has made it clear about the earlier amendment brought. It is also contended by the respondent-State that even though the earlier validity of the amendment has been ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same was not implemented since the Rules were not framed. Knowing this factual aspect fully well, the petitioners herein have pleaded, in the petitions, that this is the second time the proposed amendments were brought and hence, they cannot be construed as one time measure and cannot be held as valid. In the writ petitions itself, the petitioners have admitted that the earlier amendments proposed by the State Legislature were challenged by filing the writ petition and they obtained stay of implementation of the said amended provisions and even mentioned the said writ petition numbers in their petition. It is well within the knowledge of the petitioners that earlier amendments proposed were not implemented by the State Government and the materials placed on record by both the sides show that the proposed amendments brought at present are virtually first in time and as one time measure for regularizsation of unauthorised construction and for regulation of the development of land and growth of the cities. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that it is not one time measure and repeatedly the Government of Karnataka is bringing such amendments, cannot be accepted at all.

33. It would be pertinent for us to observe at this stage that in view of Section 3(1) of the impugned Act, any building that has deviated from the Zonal Regulations, as modified, may nonetheless be regularized by the State Government as an authorised construction. It may be seen, then, that the nature of the provision under the Regulation, stipulating a height of 55 feet has thereby undergone a radical change. The provision that was earlier in the nature of a sine qua non would now be subject to post- construction regularisation to the extent that under Section 3(3) of the impugned Act the authority concerned is empowered to determine a penalty for deviations not amounting to material deviations.

33. Apart from that, we have perused the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws 2003. Looking to bye-law No.6, the power to regulate was already provided in the said enactment. It deals with deviation during construction. (i) Wherever any construction is in violation/deviation of the sanctioned plan, the Commissioner may, if he considers that the violations/deviations are within 5% of (1) the setback to be provided around the building, (2) plot coverage, (3) floor area ratio, and (4) height of the building and that the demolition under Chapter XV of the Act is not feasible without affecting structural stability, be may regularize such violations/deviations after recording detailed reasons for the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that, for the first time, such a new step was taken by the State Legislature in regularizing the unauthorised constructions. We have already mentioned in our above discussion that the competency of the State Legislature to bring such amendments cannot be challenged by the petitioners as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the earlier petitions, upheld the proposed amendment, which was brought in the year 1996. Since, the policy of the Government has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by its judgment in BAKHTAWAR TRUST AND OTHERS Vs. M.D. NARAYAN AND OTHERS reported in (2003) 5 SCC 298, the petitioners again cannot challenge the competence of the State Legislature on different grounds.