1987 (1) TMI 483 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court confirms High Court ruling on urban development, high-rise permits, and environmental compliance.

BK. SRINIVASAN Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment in a case involving urban development and environmental concerns, legality of high-rise building ... Whether the intimation to the public through the Official Gazette that the Outline Development Plan was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 13(4) regulating the publication of the approved Plan and Regulations? Held that:- In the present case Section 13(4) has prescribed the mode of publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations. Such public notice is required to be given by a publication in the Official Gazette, This is how it was understood by the authorities and everyone else concerned and this is how it was done in the present case. This appears to be a reasonable and a rational interpretation on Section 13(4) and Rule 33 in the setting and the scheme. We are of the view that there was compliance with the requirements of Section 13(4) and Rule 33. We have earlier mentioned that Section 13(1) requires the provisional Outline Development Plan. In the result we find no merit in the appeals which are accordingly dismissed with costs. The judgment of the High Court will now be given effect by the authorities, taking note of the several undertakings given to the High Court and this Court at various stages. Issues Involved:1. Urban development and environmental concerns2. Legality of high-rise building permits3. Compliance with the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Zonal Regulations4. Publication and effectiveness of the ODP and Regulations5. Validation of acts and proceedings under Section 76JIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Urban Development and Environmental Concerns:The judgment begins by lamenting the transformation of Bangalore from a beautiful city with elegant avenues and gardens to one marred by high-rise buildings and pollution. The court acknowledges the necessity of modern developments but raises questions about the extent and cost of such changes. The concerns of aggrieved citizens include preventing congestion, controlling population density, providing lung spaces, preserving recreational facilities, and removing pollution and health hazards. The court emphasizes the need for a balanced use of available land and refers to the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, which aims to address these issues.2. Legality of High-Rise Building Permits:The appellants and petitioners were allottees from the Bangalore Improvement Trust Board, which had imposed conditions on the construction of houses, including a prohibition on subdividing sites and constructing more than one dwelling house per site. The petitioners were dismayed by the construction of high-rise buildings in the Raj Mahal Vilas Extension, fearing privacy invasion, disturbance of peace, interference with civic amenities, and health hazards. They submitted a memorandum to the Governor and Chief Minister, which went unanswered, leading to the filing of writ petitions. The principal complaint was that the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for Bangalore was ignored in granting permits for high-rise buildings, which exceeded the maximum permissible height.3. Compliance with the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Zonal Regulations:The petitioners argued that the permits for high-rise buildings violated the ODP and Zonal Regulations. The High Court initially refused an interim order but later restrained further construction based on an undertaking by the appellants. The High Court ultimately declared the licenses granted for construction illegal and directed the Commissioner of the Bangalore Corporation to modify the licenses to conform to the ODP and Zonal Regulations.4. Publication and Effectiveness of the ODP and Regulations:The appellants contended that the ODP and Regulations were never published in the Official Gazette as required by Section 13(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, rendering them ineffective. The respondents argued that there was sufficient publication and that the ODP and Regulations were available for inspection. The court examined the statutory provisions, including Sections 9, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act, and the rules relating to publication. The court concluded that the intimation to the public through the Official Gazette that the ODP was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority was sufficient compliance with Section 13(4).5. Validation of Acts and Proceedings under Section 76J:The High Court held that any defect in the publication of the ODP and Regulations was cured by Section 76J, which validates acts and proceedings despite procedural defects. The court agreed, stating that the defect in publication did not affect the merits of the case and was cured by Section 76J. The court also emphasized that the ODP and Regulations were integral parts of each other and should not be treated as distinct entities.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment. The court found that the publication requirements were met, the ODP and Regulations were valid, and the licenses granted for high-rise buildings were illegal. The authorities were directed to give effect to the High Court's judgment, taking note of the undertakings given by the appellants. The appeals were dismissed with costs.