# M/S. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1998] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 335
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-09-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48 B c of 1992
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-dlf-universal-ltd-v-prof-a-lakshmi-sagar-and-ors-etc-16288
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

M/S. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
v.
PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR AND ORS. ETC.
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
[M.M. PUNCHI, CJ, S.C. AGRAWAL AND A.P. MISRA, J.T.]
Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964-Sections 6, 95-Convaiion of
agriC!lllllral land for non-apicultural use--Grant of pe11nissio11-Power and
procedur<:-Scheme for constmction of villa~Power to pwzt approval confe1red on Deputy Con11nissione1~Diversion of use sought in respect of lmge
number of plots of land-Whether State Govemment was comretent to exercise power u/s 95-Held, Yes-Whether State Govemment was required to
fallow procedure laid down in sec. 6 before passing order approving the
schem<:-Held, No.
Co11stitution of India, 195£r-Art. 226--Public interest litigation--Schcme for constmction of villas 011 bank of 1ive1~rallt of pe11nission
for conversion of agricultllral land for non agriculwral use.1~hal
lenged-TVhether co11st111ction of township on bank of the river would adversely affect quantity a11d qiwlity of water to city of Bangalor1:-Held, No.
A
B
c
D
E
The appellant submitted a proposal for a scheme of developing a
garden colony of 270 country type plots of one acre or more having a villa
each. After taking into consideration the views expressed by various
authorities, the State Government granted the sanction. The petitioners,
residents of the city of Bangalore filed Writ petitions by way of public
F
interest litigation challenging the order of the State Government on the
ground that construction of township on the banks of Arkavati River will
affect both the quality and quantity of water in the river which wonld be
injurious to the interests of the people residing in the city of Bangalore.
Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court set aside tht order passed by
G
the State Government. Hence these appeals. The issues raised for consideration were (i) whether in passing the order giving its approval to the
proposed scheme has the State Government kept in view the interest of the
Public in the matter of pollution of the water of the river and water
reservoirs and the availability of supply of water to the city of Bangalore;
and (ii) whether the approval of the proposed scheme by the State GovernH
335
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. l S.C.R.
A ment suffers from an infirmity justifying interference by the court in
exercise of its power of judicial review.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
B
HELD : I. In the matter of pollution of the waters the order of the
State Government takes note that the revised scheme submitted by DLF
involves construction of individual septic tanks coupled with soil absorption system with dispersion trenches and that the ellluent water will be used
for gardening, etc. Under the scheme each country villa will have a septic
tank coupled with soil absorption system and each septic tank will cater for
C 15 users and the septic tanks ""ill be located at a minimum distance of 100
mtrs. away from the river line. The order shows that reference had also been
made to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, and the Board in its
reply had stated that the proposal of DLF may be approved subject to the
conditions set out in the said letter. The State Government arrived at the
D decision to grant approval to the proposed scheme of DLF keeping in view
the said conditions indicated by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
and in the order granting permission, it is provided that DLF shall stipulate
in each sale/lease deed (to be registered), while selling the plots/country,
that each buyer of the site/country villas shall strictly abide by the pollution
control devices recommended by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
E Board and that the said Board will have the right to inspect and satisfy itself
""ith the compliance of the measures and, in case of any violation, the said
Board shall take action as per rules against the violator(s). This would
show that while granting permission the State Government has kept in view
the danger of pollution of water of river Ark

## Text

_Characters 0–39,631 of 56,616. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39631 for what follows._

M/S. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
v.
PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR AND ORS. ETC.
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
[M.M. PUNCHI, CJ, S.C. AGRAWAL AND A.P. MISRA, J.T.]
Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964-Sections 6, 95-Convaiion of
agriC!lllllral land for non-apicultural use--Grant of pe11nissio11-Power and
procedur<:-Scheme for constmction of villa~Power to pwzt approval confe1red on Deputy Con11nissione1~Diversion of use sought in respect of lmge
number of plots of land-Whether State Govemment was comretent to exercise power u/s 95-Held, Yes-Whether State Govemment was required to
fallow procedure laid down in sec. 6 before passing order approving the
schem<:-Held, No.
Co11stitution of India, 195£r-Art. 226--Public interest litigation--Schcme for constmction of villas 011 bank of 1ive1~rallt of pe11nission
for conversion of agricultllral land for non agriculwral use.1~hal
lenged-TVhether co11st111ction of township on bank of the river would adversely affect quantity a11d qiwlity of water to city of Bangalor1:-Held, No.
A
B
c
D
E
The appellant submitted a proposal for a scheme of developing a
garden colony of 270 country type plots of one acre or more having a villa
each. After taking into consideration the views expressed by various
authorities, the State Government granted the sanction. The petitioners,
residents of the city of Bangalore filed Writ petitions by way of public
F
interest litigation challenging the order of the State Government on the
ground that construction of township on the banks of Arkavati River will
affect both the quality and quantity of water in the river which wonld be
injurious to the interests of the people residing in the city of Bangalore.
Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court set aside tht order passed by
G
the State Government. Hence these appeals. The issues raised for consideration were (i) whether in passing the order giving its approval to the
proposed scheme has the State Government kept in view the interest of the
Public in the matter of pollution of the water of the river and water
reservoirs and the availability of supply of water to the city of Bangalore;
and (ii) whether the approval of the proposed scheme by the State GovernH
335
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. l S.C.R.
A ment suffers from an infirmity justifying interference by the court in
exercise of its power of judicial review.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
B
HELD : I. In the matter of pollution of the waters the order of the
State Government takes note that the revised scheme submitted by DLF
involves construction of individual septic tanks coupled with soil absorption system with dispersion trenches and that the ellluent water will be used
for gardening, etc. Under the scheme each country villa will have a septic
tank coupled with soil absorption system and each septic tank will cater for
C 15 users and the septic tanks ""ill be located at a minimum distance of 100
mtrs. away from the river line. The order shows that reference had also been
made to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, and the Board in its
reply had stated that the proposal of DLF may be approved subject to the
conditions set out in the said letter. The State Government arrived at the
D decision to grant approval to the proposed scheme of DLF keeping in view
the said conditions indicated by Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
and in the order granting permission, it is provided that DLF shall stipulate
in each sale/lease deed (to be registered), while selling the plots/country,
that each buyer of the site/country villas shall strictly abide by the pollution
control devices recommended by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
E Board and that the said Board will have the right to inspect and satisfy itself
""ith the compliance of the measures and, in case of any violation, the said
Board shall take action as per rules against the violator(s). This would
show that while granting permission the State Government has kept in view
the danger of pollution of water of river Arkavati and Thippagondanajally
F water reservoir and has taken adequate precautions against the possibility
of such pollution by imposing strict conditions as laid down by the State
Pollution Control Board in that regard. While granting approval to the
proposed scheme of DLF the State Government has also directed that any
monitoring by peasemeters may be undertaken directly by the State Pollution Control Board and Water Supply and Sewerage Board independently
G of DLF. (350-A-C; 361-B-E]
1.2. The order granting permission shows that it was passed after the
State Government has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and
approval was given to the proposed scheme after the State Government was
H satisfied that the proposed scheme will not effect the availability of water
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. v. P~OF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR [S.C. AGRA WAL. J.] 337
for supply to the city of Bangalore and had also prevented the possibility A
of pollution of waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally Water
reservoir by laying conditions. [353-D-E]
1.3. Grant of approval to the proposed scheme does not amount to
declaring the said area as a new village or the alteration of the area of an
existing village. The question whether the colony which comes into existence
under the scheme as proposed is to be declared to be a new village or is to
be included in an existing village will have to be considered after the
development takes place as proposed in the scheme and at that stage the
requirements of section 6 of the Karnataka Land ·Revenue Act may have to
be complied with. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding
that the State Government was rec1uired to follow the procedure laid down
in section 6 of the Land Revenue Act before passing the order approving
the proposed scheme. [355-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48
B
c
of 1992 Etc.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.92 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.P. Nos. 2285/92, 23470 and 24877 of 1991.
C.A. Nos. 4543-45/92 and I.A. Nos. 1-42 in SLP (C) No. 1091455/1991.
Kapil Sibal, S.S. Javeli, Ms. Veerappa, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ravinder
Narain, S. Sukumaran, Sanjiv Sen, Ratanesh, Ms. Deepa Rathore, Ms.
Neeti Dixit, P.R. Ramasesh, K.R. Nagaraja and K.K. Tyagi for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48/92 and Civil Appeals
Nos. 4543-45/1992
E
F
These appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by way of public G
interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court to challenge the order dated
June 29, 1991 passed by the Government of Karnataka approving the
scheme framed by M/s D.L.F. Universal Limited [for short "DLF] for
development of 270 sites for country villas in Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore District. By its judgment dated April 24, 1992 the
High Court, while allowing the said writ petitions has set aside the said H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
order of the State Government dated June 29, 1991.
B
c
D
E
F
During the period 1972-76, forty-two serving and retired members of
the Indian defence Forces individually purchased lands admeasuring about
414 acres in Magadi Taluk of Bangalore Rural District. The owners of
thes~ lands formed themselves into a cooperative society called "the
Arkavati Progressive Farmers Cooperative Society" [hereinafter referred to
as 'the Cooperative Society"]. In 1979 the said land owners submitted
applications before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural
District, for permission to divert their lands to non-agricultural purposes
under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [hereinafter
referred to as "the Land Revenue Act"]. The Special Deputy commissioner,
after obtaining the views of the Director (Town Planning), passed orders
in May, June and July 1979 in some of those cases according sanction for
diversion of the lands for non-agricultural/industriaVresidential purposes
subject to the conditions mentioned in those orders. In other cases the
Special Deputy Commissioner either did not communicate the order
rejecting the request for permission or did not pass any kind of order for
a period of four months from the date of application filed by the different
holders with the result that in all such cases permission sought was deemed
to have been granted under Section 95(5) of the Land Revenue Act. The
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board [hereinafter referred to as
"the Water Supply and Sewerage Board"] filed appeals against the said
orders/deemed orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"]
under section 49 of the Act. The said appeals were dismissed by the
Tribunal by its judgment dated August 13, 1981. After the passing of the
said order of the Tribunal dated August 13, 1981 the owners whose
applications had been rejected earlier and those who did not receive the
orders on their applications regarding conversion filed fresh applications
before the Special Deputy Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner by his orders dated March 27, 1982 granted permission for conversion under Section 95 to those applicants also. Feeling aggrieve.cl by the
G said judgment of the Tribunal as well as the orders dated March 27, 1982
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Water Supply and
Sewerage Board filed writ petitions [W.P.Nos. 19919-19954 of 82 and
21172- 21177 of 82) before the Karnataka High Court. In the meanwhile
the lands of the individual owners were purchased by DLF and it got itself
impleaded as respondent in those writ petitions. The said writ petitions
H
were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment
. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. v. PROF. A LAKSHMI SAGAR [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 339
dated April 27, 1987 whereby the order of the Tribunal dated August 13,
1981 as well as the orders dated March 27, 1982 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner were quashed on the view that having regard to the
provisions contained in the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961
[hereinafter referred to as "the Planning Act"] and Section 148 of the Land
Revenue Act for a change in land use for the purpose of establishing a new
village or township or city, as the case may be, the State Government must
first take a decision as to whether a new village or township or city should
be raised in a particular area and if it decides that in a particular area a
new village or township or city should be raised it has to issue a notification
declaring that area as the local planning area for the purpose of the
Planning Act and thereafter further steps in accordance with the provisions
of the Planning Act had to be taken and it is only on complying with these
provisions the permission for conversion of agricultural lands for nonagricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Act can be sought and
obtained in the case of establishment of a new township. It was held that
it is a case where large tract of agricultural land is being used for raising
A
B
c
a new township and this was a matter which lies within the exclusive D
decision of the State Government and it is the State Government which has
to decide and select the area for location of new village, township or city,
as the case may be.
Writ Appeals Nos. 744-785 of 87-fil~d against the said judgment of
E
the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court by judgment dated November 28, 1990. Agreeing with the views of
the learned Single Judge the learned Judges held that the State Government must first take a decision as to whether a new village or township or
city should be raised in a particular area and if it decides to do so it has
to issue a notification declaring that area as the local planning area and
F
the necessary steps ought to follow and thereafter a notification under
Section 148(1) of the Land Revenue Act could be issued and it is only
thereafter the question of converting an agricultural land into non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Act would arise. The learned Judges
of the Division Bench of the High Court, while dismissing the appeals, G
observed:-
"Our judgment will not come in the way of the Government
independently considering the matter and coming to any conclusion on merits."
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A
At this stage it may be mentioned that while the aforementioned writ
petitions were pending before the learned Single Judge a revised scheme,
DLF Arkavati Green Valley Retreat Scheme, was submitted by DLF
before the Government of Karnataka on December 1, 1984. The original
proposal of the owners of the plots who were seeking conversion was for
B construction of 770 farm houses. In the revised scheme submitted by DLF
the proposal was for developing a garden colony of 270 country type plots
of one acre or more having a villa each. The said revised proposal was
under consideration before the State Government during the pendency of
the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and the writ appeals
before the Division Bench of the High Court and the fact that such a
C revised proposal had been made by DLF had also been brought to the
notice of the D,vision Bench of the High Court by DLF by submitting an
application in the writ appeals.
After the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
D November 28, 1990 the said revised scheme submitted by DLF was considered by the State Government in the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director
(Town Planning) and the Secretary lo the Government of Karnataka,
Revenue Department were also asked to examine and furnish their views
on the revised proposal submitted by DLF. The Secretary to the GovernE ment of Karnataka, Revenue Department, referred the matter to the
Special Deputy Commissioner, who, by his letter dated May 10, 1991,
communicated his views as under:-
F
G
"In the instant case, the conversion already given by the Special
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, has been set aside by the
Hon'ble High Court since their earlier proposal was for establishing a Township consisting of nearly 700 sites. The present
revised proposal is for establishing only 270 villas. This area is also
outside the CDP, Planning Zone (also not under Green Belt) and
purely from the Revenue Department point of view I am of the
opinion that there will be no objection to grant non-agricultural
permission is this case, the earlier conversion orders will be
reviewed if Government approve/sanction the revised proposal."
The Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, by
H his letter dated May 14, 1991 informed the Department of Housing &
DLFUNIVERSALLTD.v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 341
Urban Development about the views referred in the detailed report furA
nished by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, on May 10, 1991
and expressed his views as under:-
"Considering all the aspects, the Revenue Department is of the
opinion that the conversions already granted shall continue and
orders if any required in this regard would be issued immediately
after the decision to permit this new proposal in totality by the
HUD Dept. is made known to us. I am sure HUD could be
separately looking into the matters concerning pollution feared by
the BWS&SB."
B
c
The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board by their letter dated
May 13, 1991, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka
Housing & Urban Development, expressed the view that the revised
proposal submitted by DLF may be approved subject to the conditions as
indicated in the said letter. The Director (Town Planning) in his letter
dated May 17, 1991 sent his note considering the various aspects. After D
taking into consideration the views expressed by the authorities aforementioned the State Government passed the order dated June 29, 1991 which
reads as under:-
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Sub :
Mis DLF's Arkavathi Green Valley Retreat Scheme
Development of 270 sites for Country Villas - reg.
Read : (i) Proposal dt. 12.8.1985 from Mis DLF Ltd., New
E
D~
F
(ii) Letter dt. 20.8.1991 from Mis DLF Ltd.
(iii) U.O. Note No. RO 91 LGB 91 dt. 14.5.1991
from the Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department.
(iv) Letter No. TPIAD21ISSC/Devl91-92 dt. 17.5.91
from the Director of Town Planning.
(v). Letter No. BMRADIECl319191-92 dt. 18.5.91 from
the Metropolitan Commissioner, BMRAD,
Bangalore.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
Preamble:- M/s DLF Univers<1-l Limited alongwith its Associated and Subsidiary Companies have acquired about 414 acres
of land falling in Survey Numbers 1/6, 1/7, 2, 4, 5, 6/1, 6/2, 7, 12,
13/2, 19 to 69,71 to 81, 83/1, 87/4, 88,90, 91, 92/1, 92/2, 93/1,
93/2,93/3,109/3 and 109/4 in Gangennahalli Village, 37/5 in KurBubarahalli Village, 7 to 11, 13, and 14 in Varathur Village and 1
to 31 in Varthur Narasimhapura Village all in Taverekere Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore D,istrict, on the both sides of
River Arkavathi originally for the purpose of formation of residential colony under the name of Mis DLF Arkavathi Green Valley
Retreat Scheme with Central Sewerage System. The Bangalore
Water Supply and Sewerage Board vide its letter dt. 2.1.85 had
suggested to the Government to examine the entire matter. In the
meanwhile, M/s DLF Universal Limited has submitted revised
proposal on 12/13.8.85 stating that the new system involves construction of individual septic tanks coupled with soil absorption
system with dispersion trenches and the effluent water will be used
for gardening, etc. They claim that there would be no seepage and
consequent pollution. The number of plots will not exceed 270 and
they will be utilised for construction of "Country Villas" by the
buyers of the Sites/plots and by M/s DLF Universal Limited. The
plots will be approximately one acre in extent and above and no
further sub-division by way of sale will be permitted. As against
the previous proposal of Central sewerage plant for treatment of
effluent, the revised proposal entails that each country villa will
have septic tank coupled with soil absorption system. Each septic
tank will cater for 15 users and the septic tanks will be located at
a minimum distance of 100 meters away from the river line. Apart
fro}ll this, the effluent will be used for gardening in each plot.
Water supply for the colony at 10 lakhs litres per day will be met
from Bore-Wells and open wells. The garden colony will have
extensive tree plantings which will improve the ecology of the
whole area. The then Hon'ble Chief Minister visited the spot
alongwith the then Chief Secretary, Secretary to Chief Minister
and Minister for Housing & Urban Development Department on
12th August, 1985. Subsequently, the government had constituted
an expert committee to consider the matter and also later on the
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR [S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 343
recommendations of this committee were forwarded to the KarA
nataka State Pollution Control Board among others for views. ln
the meantime, the BWSSB had approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka and the latter in W.P. No. 19919 to 19954 and
~
21172 to 21177 of 1982 quashed the Order of the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal dated 13.8.81, by which the permission given B
by the Revenue Department for conversion from agriculture to
non-agriculture purpose has been upheld etc., etc. Against this
orcl_er of the High Court of Karnataka (Single Bench) M/s DLF
Universal Ltd. and others filed Writ appeals before the Karnataka
High Court and the latter also dismissed these Writ Appeals. But c
while doing so, it expressed the opinion in W.A. No. 744 to 785 of
1987 by order dt. 28.11.1990 that "our judgment will not come in
the way of the Government independently, considering the matter
and coming to any conclusion on merits". In the meantime, the
Government also had called for the opinion of the Secy. to Govt.
in the Revenue Department, the Director of Town Planning, D
BMRDA and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board etc.
The Karnataka State Pollution Board has sent its reply vide its
letter dt. 13.5.1991 stating that the proposal of M/s DLF and other
may be approved subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Since the area proposed to be developed is in the E
sensitive zone, i.e., Catchment area of Thippagondanahally Reservoir, all precautions are required to be
taken so that there will not be any direct or indirect
entry of sewerage effluent to the reservoir or the river.
F
(ii) The septic tank, soak pit, dispersion system of each
farm house shall be located farthest from the borders of
the reservoir and the river.
(iii) The design for the septic tank, soak pits and <lisperG
sion system shall be submitted to Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and approval obtained before
commencement of building activities.
(iv) The sludge from the septic tank shall be removed
compulsory once in two years, dried in a separate yard H
344
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. l S.C.R.
following scientific method for which records must be
maintained and produced for v~rification by Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board.
(v) Pesticides, fungicides and insecticides should be applied on the vegetation in the area in a scientific method
as approved by the Agricultural Department to avoid
contamination of surface water.
(vi) Peasemeters shall be positioned at reg.ular intervals
along the reservoir of river borders in the proposed site
after getting the advice from the National Environmen-
. ta! Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur for appropriate monitoring of contamination of ground water
likely to be leached to either river or reservoir.
(vii) the applicant shall abide by such other conditions
as prescribed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board as and when the same are found necessary.
These recommendations/conditions of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, alongwith the opinion received from others
and also taking into consideration an overall view of the entire
E
matter and the letter dt. 20.5.1991 of M/s DLF Universal Ltd.,
the Government have decided to take the following decisions in
public interest :
F
G
H
Order No. HUD 90 MRI 84, BANGALORE
DATED 29TH JUNE 1991.
(A) M/s DLF is hereby directed to stipulate in each sale/lease ·deed
(to be registered), while selling the plots/country villas that each
buyer of the site/country villas shall strictly abide by the pollution
control measures recommended by the Karnataka State Pollution
Control Board as stated above and the latter will have the right to
inspect and satisfy itself with the compliance of the measure and
in case of any violation, the Pollution Control Board shall take
action as per rules against the violator(s).
(B) Government hereby ordered for continuance of the permission
given for a conversion by the Revenue Department in 1979-82 for
...
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR [S.C. AGRA WAL, J.] 345
converting these lands to non-agricultural purpose (residential).
A
(C) It is further directed that any monitoring by peasemeters may
be undertaken directly by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board, and BWSSB, independently of DLF Universal Ltd.
(D) The DLF Universal Ltd. would be over a period of time B
disposing off all the sites/country villas and accordingly the ownership of these plots/country villas will get progressively transferred
to different individuals. It is, therefore, directed that all obligations
and restrictions that may be imposed on M/s DLF Universal Ltd.
by Governmental authorities will have to ultimately and progresC
sively be applicable to devolve upon the successors of M/s. DLF
Universal Ltd. to whom these plots/country villas will finally get
transferred by sale/lease deeds.
(E) The revised present proposals dt. 12/13.8.85 for development
of sites not exceeding 270 numbers for construction of country villas D
by M/s DLF Universal Ltd. and/or their successors are only out lines
regarding the layout, the roads and other facilitir.s. It is directed that
a firm commitment on the development of sites not exceeding 270
country villas will be strictly adhered to by M/s DLF Universal and
their successors. Therefore, :my modifications to the layout if found E
necessary later on, while executing the civil works, may be permitted
in consultation with the Town Planning Authorities, but in no way
sites for 270 country villas will be exceeded.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE
GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA
(H.K. SAMP ANGIRAMAIAH)
Under Secretary to Government,
Housing & Urban Development Department."
F
The said order dated June 29, 1991 was challenged by the petitioners G
in the three writ petitions which were filed by way of public interest
litigation on the ground that by allowing a township to come up on the
banks of Arkavati River by construction of 270 country villas both the
quality and quantity of water in the river and the water reservoir constructed at Thippagondanahally across the river Arkavati, which is one of H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A the main sources for supply of water to the city of Bangalore, would be
adversely affected which would be injurious to the interests of the people
residing in the city of Bangalore and that not only there would be depletion
in supply of water but also there is every chance of pollution of water. The
following contentions were urged by the petitioners in support of their writ
B petitions before the High Court:-
c
D
E
F
G
(1) The impugned order which directs that permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural use which ·were
quashed by the High Court shall continue is high-handed, arbitrary,
illegal, destructive of Rule of Law and also amounts to committing
contempt of the High Court.
(2) Under the Land Revenue Act the Government had no power
to grant permission for conversion of agricultural lands for nonagricultural use as that power under Section 95 thereof is conferred
only on the Deputy Commissioner and therefore the order is
without authority of law.
(3) Though the clear pronouncement of the High Court in the writ
petition filed by the Board and in the writ appeal arising therefrom
was,. unless a new township is established after following the
procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act, and the Planning Act, question of exercise of power under Section 95, would
not arise, the Government has passed the impugned order allowing
a new Township and therefore not only it is violative of the Land
'Revenue Act but also a clear case of flouting the decision of the
High Court.
( 4) The impugned order is totally arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it adversely affect the quality and
quantity of drinking water to the city and it is passed for collateral
consideration, namely, the influence brought to bear on the
Government by the DLF and which would benefit only the DLF
to make profit and a few affluent individuals to put up country
villas which would be at the cost of the interests of millions of
residents of the city of Bangalore.
(5) Though by the force of Section 79-A and/or Section 79-B of
H
the Land Reforms Act the 414 acres of land has to be forfeited to
_,.
-
DLFUNIVERSALLID.v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR[S.C. AGRAWAL, J.) 347
Government, the Government has chosen to pass the impugned A
order and therefore, it is illegal.
The first three contentions have found favour with the learned Judges
of the High Court and, accepting the said contentions, the High Court has
set aside the order dated June 29, 1991 and the said writ petitions have
been allowed by the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4543-4545 of 1992 have been filed by the State of
Karnataka, whiJe Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-4548 of 1992 have have been filed
by DLF against the said judgment of the High Court. The State of Karnataka has, however, filed I.A. Nos. 4-6 seeking permission to withdraw the
appeals. The said applications are allowed and Civil Appeals Nos. 45434545 of 1992 filed by the State are dismissed as withdrawn.
B
c
Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing for DLF, has
urged that the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that the D
revised scheme submitted by DLF was for establishing a new township and
that by order dated June 29,1991 permission had been granted for establishment of a new township. It has been urged that under the revised
scheme what is proposed is to construct about 270 villas over plots measuring one acre or more each and that the construction of 270 villas on plot
of one acre each cannot be regarded as establishing a township. The
proposed scheme was really a scheme for conversion of agricultural land
for use for non-agricultural purposes, namely, residential purposes and it
was required to be considered only under Section 95 of the Land Revenue
Act and that the High Court was not right in holding that the State
Government was required to follow the procedure laid down in Sections
4, 5 and 6 of the Land Revenue Act. As regards the exercise of power
under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, the submission of Shri Sibal is
that one has to look at the substance of the matter and if it is considered
in that light it would be evident that the matter relating to grant of approval
E
F
for diversion of agricultural land for use for other purposes under Section
95 has been considered by the Special Deputy Commissioner since, in his G
communication dated May 10, 1991, addressed to the Secretary, Government of Karnataka Revenue Department, the Special Deputy Commissioner had expressed the view that from the revenue point of view in his
opinion there was no objection to grant of permission for conversion to
non-agricultural purposes. Shri Sibal has contended that although techniH
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A cally speaking the order for continuing of the permission earlier granted
could not be passed in view of the judgments of the learned Single Judge
of the High Court as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in the
earlier writ petitions filed by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board
whereby the orders granting approval for such conversion had been
quashed but, in substance, the order dated June 29, 1991 is an order for
B fresh grant of permission under Section 95 of the Act. In this context, Shri
Sibal has urged that in a public interest litigation the court examines the
substance of the matter and sees whether the impugned action causes
injury to the larger public interest and that if the order of the State
Government dated June 29, 1991 is examined in that light it cannot be said
C that while passing the said order the State Government has not kept in view
the larger public interest. Shri Sibal has emphasised that before passing the
order dated 29, 1991 the State Government had obtained the views of the
concerned departments, namely, the Revenue Department, the Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Town Planning and
D while passing the order the State Government has given due consideration
to these views. Assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court holding
• that the proposed scheme would result in depletion of the available supply
of water in Arkavati river and Thippagondanahally water reservoir, Shri
Sibal has submitted that no water would be taken either from Arkavati river
or from the reservoir and that need of water supply for the proposed colony
E would be met by open wells and bore wells on the plots. As regards the
apprehension that the proposed scheme would result in pollution of the
water in the river or the reservoir, Shri Sibal has submitted that the
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has laid down stringent conditions with a view to preventing any possibility of such pollution and that
F the order passed by the State Government requires DLF to fully abide by
the conditions that are imposed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board and the State Government in that regard.
Shri J aveli, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionerG respondents, who had filed the writ petitions in the High Court, has,
however, submitted that the High Court has rightly quashed the order
dated June 29, 1991 passed by the State Government and that the proposed
scheme would result in depletion of availability of water in river Arkavati
and Thippagondanahally reservoir which is the main source of water supply
to the city of Bangalore. In this connection, Shri Javeli has invited our.
H attention to the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein it has been
DLFUNIVERSALLTD.v. PROF.A. LAKSHMISAGAR[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 349
observed that the Water Supply and Sewerage Board, in the earlier writ A
petitions had taken the stand that the proposed scheme would result in
deple.tion of available supply of water in the reservoir, but in the present
case the Water Supply and Sewerage Board has chosen not to file any
reply. The submission of Shri Javeli is that in the circumstances the High
Court was right in proceeding on the basis that in the absence of any reply
by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board the earlier position taken by the
Water Supply and Sewerage Board must be accepted as correct and that
the proposed scheme would result in depletion of available supply of water
for the city of Bangalore. Shri Javeli has also submitted that the proposed
scheme for construction of villas is bound to create degradation in the
environment of the neighbourhood and would also lead to pollution of
water in river Arkavati and Thippagondanhally water reservoir since the
proposed construction would be made quite close to the river and the
reservoir. Shri J aveli has also submitted that the High Court has rightly
held that the proposed scheme would result in establishment of a township
B
c
and this could only be done after following the procedure laid down in
D
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Land Revenue Act.
The challenge to the validity of the order <lated June 29, 1991 has
been made in proceedings which are in the nature of public interest
litigation at the instance of persons residing in the city of Bangalore who
were apprehensive that the said approval of the scheme would adversely
affect the supply of water to the city and would also result in pollution of
the waters of river Arkavati as well as Thippagondanahally water reservoir
from where the water is supplied to the city of Bangalore. Having regard
to the nature of the proceedings the matter is required to be considered
in a broad public interest perspective. If the matter is considered in this
perspectiv_r two questions that arise are:-
(i) In passing the order dated June 29, 1991 giving its approval to
the proposed scheme has the State Government kept in view the
E
F
· interest of the public in the matter of pollution of the waters of
river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally water reservoir and the G
availability of supply of water to the city of Bangalore'?; and
(ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in the affirmative, does the
approval of the proposed scheme by the State Government under
order dated June 29, 1991 suffer from an infirmity justifying interference by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review?
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
In the matter of pollution of the waters the order of the State
Government dated June 29, 1991 takes note that the revised scheme
submitted by DLF involves construction of individual septic tanks coupled
with soil absorption system with dispersion trenches and that the effluent
water will be used for gardening, etc. Under the scheme each country villa
B will have a septic tank coupled with soil absorption system and each septic
tank will cater for 15 users and the septic tanks will be located at a
minimum distance of 100 meters away from the river line. The order dated
June 29, 1991 shows that reference had also been made to the Karnataka
S~!ite Pollution Control Board and the said Board, in its reply vide its letter
C dated May 13, 1991, had stated that the proposal of DLF may be approved
subject to the conditions set out in the said letter. In the said conditions
the Pollution Control Board had indicated that -
(i) since the area proposed to be developed is in the sensitive zone,
D
i.e., catchment area of the Thippagondanahally reservoir, all
precautions are required to be taken so that there will not be any
direct or indirect entry of sewerage effluents to the reservoir or
•he river,
E
F
(ii) the septic tank, soak pit, dispersion system of each farm house
shall be located farthest from the borders of the reservoir and the
nver,
(iii) the design for the septic tank, soak pit and dispersion shall be
submitted to the Pollution Control Board and approval obtained
before commencement of building activities,
•
(iv) the sludge from the septic tank shall be removed compulsorily
once in two years, dried in a separate yard following scientific
method for which records must be maintained and produced for
G
verification by the Pollution Control Board,
(v) Pesticides, fungicides and insecticides shall be applied on the
vegetation in the area in a scientific method as approved by the
Agricultural Department to avoid contamination of surface water,
H
and
)
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. v. PROF. A. LAKSHMI SAGAR (S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 351
(vi) peasemeters be positioned at regular intervals along with A
reservoir of river borders in the proposed site after getting the
advice from the National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute, Nagpur for appropriate monitoring of contamination of
ground water likely to be leached to either river or reservoir.
The State Government arrived at the decision to grant approval to the
proposed scheme of DLF keeping in view the said conditions indicated by
the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and in the order dated June
29, 1991 it is provided that DLF shall stipulate in each sale/lease deed (to
B
be registered), while selling the plots/country villas, that each buyer of the
site/country villas shall strictly abide by the pollution control measures C
recommended by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and that
the said Board will have the right to inspect and satisfy itself with the
compliance of the measures and, in case of any violation, the said Board
shall take action as per rules against the violator( s). This would show that
while granting permission the State Government has kept in view the D
danger of pollution of the waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally
water reservoir and has tlRen adequate precautions against the possibility
of such pollution by imposing strict conditions as laid down by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in that regard. While granting approval to the proposed scheme of DLF the State Government has also
directed that any monitoring by peasemeters may be undertaken directly E
by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Water Supply and
Sewerage Board independently of DLF.
As regards depletion in the availability of water for supply to the city
of Bangalore from Thippagondanahally water reservoir, we find that in the
order dated June 29, 1991 the State Government has taken note of the fact
that under the proposed scheme water supply for the colony at 10 lakhs
litres per day will be met from bore-wells and open wells and the garden
colony will have extensive tree plantings which will improve the ecology of
F
the whole area.