Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The allegations of the writ petitioners that the State Government had already enacted a Regularisation Law in the year 1991 and therefore, the present action of the State Government would amount to regularisation for a second time and therefore in contravention to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CONSUMER ACTION GROUP AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS reported in (2000)7 SCC 425, AIR 2000 SC 3060). The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioners very well know that though the Karnataka Regulation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991 was promulgated and gazetted on 25.9.1991, the Rules were not framed to carry out the provisions of the Act. Therefore, though the said Act of 1991 provided for regularisation of unauthorised construction, the objective was not achieved and no regularisation took place in the year 1991 or thereafter.

"With reference to the subject, letter of reference (2) and copy of the Hon'ble High Court interim order dated 19.3.2015, the Hon'ble High Court has instructed the Government to submit the statistics whether Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has conducted the survey of unauthorised development to implement The Karnataka Town and Country Planning (unauthorised development and construction regularisation) Rules, 2014. It is further mentioned that on examination it is estimated there are about 16.75 lakhs of sites/buildings in the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, out of which, 13.82 lakhs of sites/properties are coming under tax collection net. It is also mentioned that out of 16.75 lakhs sites/buildings for

"To, The Secretary of Government Urban Development Department Vikasa Soudha Bangalore-560 001.

Dear Sir, Sub: Hon'ble High Court, Bangalore, W.P.No.8895/2015, Citizen Forum for Mangalore Development against State Government and Others.

MyApra 2015, dated: 25-03-2015

2) Government Principal Advocate, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore letter dated: 20.03.2015 * * * * * * * With reference to the subject, letter of referenced (2) and the copy of the Hon'ble High Court Interim Order dated: 19-03-2015 is enclosed for your kind perusal, the Hon'ble High Court has instructed the government to submit the statistics whether Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has conducted the Survey of unauthorised development to implement Karnataka Town and Country Planning (un authorized development and construction regularisation) Rules 2014.

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.