# R & M TRUST v. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2005] 1 S.C.R. 582
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2005-01-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1415of1999
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhan, A.K. Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-m-trust-v-koramangala-residents-vigilance-group-and-ors-20462
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Municipal Laws:
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976-City of Bangalore
C Improvement Act, 1945-Banga/ore Development Authority Act, 1976 -
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961-Multi-storeyed and multiapartment buildings-Construction of-Licence issued by RespondentCorporation to owners of sites for constructing mu/ti-storeyed buildingBui/ding at completion stage-Writ petition filed by Residents of locality seeking
D cancellation of licence for construction of mu/ti-storeyed buildings and
demolition thereof on the ground that they are causing strain on public
amenities-High Court ordered demolition-On appeal, held, there is no
illegality in granting permission for raising multi-storeyed building-The
condition that only one dwelling house should be constructed is in the lease
agreement but on execution of sale deed, lessee becomes absolute owner of
E the site and the prohibition comes to an end- Thereafter there is no restriction
in any of the statutes and municipal laws as to construction of mu/ti-storeyed
building-Thus High Court not justified in cancelling the licence.
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226:
F
Public Interest Litigation-Invocation of writ jurisdiction-Held to be
invoked only sparingly in very rare cases involving public interest-Meant for
downtrodden and not for publicity or private ends-Courts not to issue
directions without understanding the implication.
Public Interest Litigation-Delay/Laches in filing-Effect of-Heid, courts
G not to come lo rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights-Delay is also
fatal when third party interest is created
H
Jn the city of Bangalore, Karnataka, construction of new buildings
are regulated by various statutes and municipal laws. Appellants, builders582
)
!4
R & M TRUST v. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP
5 83
owners of sites submitted plan for construction of multi-storeyed A
apartments. Authorities granted licences to build the same. Thereafter
construction commenced. Substantial portion of building had been
constructed when Corporation issued letter to the builders to stop
construction in view of decision in Pee Kay Construction case*.
Construction remained suspended for some time. On various
representations of appellants, Corporation pei mitted them to resume B
construction.
Some house owners and residents of the locality filed Public Interest
Petition challenging the validity of licence to build higher floors and
seeking direction to demolish the building already constructed on the C
ground that menace of multi-storeyed and multi-apartments was
increasing resulting in strain on the public amenities. Single Judge held
licences to be illegal but dismissed the petition for delay and laches.
Division Bench disagreed and directed demolition. Aggrieved against this
order, Builders and bona fide purchasers of flats in the building came up
in appeal contending that there was no illegality in the licences granted D
by the Corporation and that the Public Interest petition cannot be
entertained at this belated stage.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I. The permission granted by the Municipal Corporation E
for constructing multi storeyed building is not in violation of any of the
provisions of Governing Acts and the Rules. [604-F)
l.2. The development and planning of the City of Bangalore and
construction of building were governed by the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, F
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder. As per the City of
Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, schemes are prepared by the Board
and after preparation of the scheme and obtaining necessary approval
from the Government, allotments are made as per Rules and Bye-laws. G
The sites are allotted as per City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment
of Sites) Rules, 1964. Looking to the scheme of the Act, the Rules and the
terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreem

## Text

_Characters 0–39,970 of 72,665. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39970 for what follows._

A
R & M TRUST
v.
KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP AND ORS.
JANUARY 19, 2005
B
[ASHOK BHAN AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.]
Municipal Laws:
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976-City of Bangalore
C Improvement Act, 1945-Banga/ore Development Authority Act, 1976 -
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961-Multi-storeyed and multiapartment buildings-Construction of-Licence issued by RespondentCorporation to owners of sites for constructing mu/ti-storeyed buildingBui/ding at completion stage-Writ petition filed by Residents of locality seeking
D cancellation of licence for construction of mu/ti-storeyed buildings and
demolition thereof on the ground that they are causing strain on public
amenities-High Court ordered demolition-On appeal, held, there is no
illegality in granting permission for raising multi-storeyed building-The
condition that only one dwelling house should be constructed is in the lease
agreement but on execution of sale deed, lessee becomes absolute owner of
E the site and the prohibition comes to an end- Thereafter there is no restriction
in any of the statutes and municipal laws as to construction of mu/ti-storeyed
building-Thus High Court not justified in cancelling the licence.
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 226:
F
Public Interest Litigation-Invocation of writ jurisdiction-Held to be
invoked only sparingly in very rare cases involving public interest-Meant for
downtrodden and not for publicity or private ends-Courts not to issue
directions without understanding the implication.
Public Interest Litigation-Delay/Laches in filing-Effect of-Heid, courts
G not to come lo rescue of person who is not vigilant of his rights-Delay is also
fatal when third party interest is created
H
Jn the city of Bangalore, Karnataka, construction of new buildings
are regulated by various statutes and municipal laws. Appellants, builders582
)
!4
R & M TRUST v. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP
5 83
owners of sites submitted plan for construction of multi-storeyed A
apartments. Authorities granted licences to build the same. Thereafter
construction commenced. Substantial portion of building had been
constructed when Corporation issued letter to the builders to stop
construction in view of decision in Pee Kay Construction case*.
Construction remained suspended for some time. On various
representations of appellants, Corporation pei mitted them to resume B
construction.
Some house owners and residents of the locality filed Public Interest
Petition challenging the validity of licence to build higher floors and
seeking direction to demolish the building already constructed on the C
ground that menace of multi-storeyed and multi-apartments was
increasing resulting in strain on the public amenities. Single Judge held
licences to be illegal but dismissed the petition for delay and laches.
Division Bench disagreed and directed demolition. Aggrieved against this
order, Builders and bona fide purchasers of flats in the building came up
in appeal contending that there was no illegality in the licences granted D
by the Corporation and that the Public Interest petition cannot be
entertained at this belated stage.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: I.I. The permission granted by the Municipal Corporation E
for constructing multi storeyed building is not in violation of any of the
provisions of Governing Acts and the Rules. [604-F)
l.2. The development and planning of the City of Bangalore and
construction of building were governed by the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, F
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, Karnataka Municipal
Corporation Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder. As per the City of
Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, schemes are prepared by the Board
and after preparation of the scheme and obtaining necessary approval
from the Government, allotments are made as per Rules and Bye-laws. G
The sites are allotted as per City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment
of Sites) Rules, 1964. Looking to the scheme of the Act, the Rules and the
terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement, it transpires that
once an allotment is made to the lessee and he make~ all payments then
after the payment the lessee/vendor shall at the end of ten years sell the
property to the lessee/purchaser and the lessee/purchaser will get the sale H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A deed registered and the lessee will have absolute right. So long as the
building is not constructed under lease agreement, the lessee is neither
entitled to alienate the property, nor shall he sub-divide the property or
construct more than one dwelling house on it. These restrictions are there
so long as the complete sale agreement is not executed.
B
[590-H; 591-A; 595-E; 601-F; 60·?-AJ
1.3. As soon as the lease agreement is executed conforming full title
to the lessee, then the conditions of the lease cum sale agreement come to
an end and the lessee acquires full right to deal with the said prop1~rty.
After acquiring this full right the lessee has right to alienate the property
C and there is no further hurdle or condition like not to construct multistoreyed building or multi-dwelling house. The only condition that hE: will
construct only one dwelling house is contained in the lease cum sale
agreement and so long as the full rights are not transferred to the lesseepurchaser, this condition would survive and after the sale is made, this
condition will no longer survive and conditions contained in absolutE: sale
D deed will govern. If the lessee or his successor wants to raise a construction,
then the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act will come
into play and he has to obtain prior sanction for construction of the
building. As soon as the permission is granted by the Corporation, he is
to abide by those conditions along with the condition laid down in absolute
E sale deed. [602-B, C, D-El
l .4. The only condition laid down in absolute sale deed is that
building to be constructed shall be used for human habitation and it shall
not allow any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not,
used as a shop or warehouse or for manufacturing operation. There is no
F condition that one cannot raise any multi-storeyed building over the
schedule property. [603-D-EJ
2. There are no provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation
Act or Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 where any ceiling
has been applied on the construction of the multi-storeyed building.
G Therefore, Municipal Corporation has not committed any illegal1ity in
granting permission to the appellant for raising construction up to third
floor. [604-El
H
*Pee Kay Constructions v. Chadrashekar Hegde, ILR ( 11989)
Karnataka 241, overruled.
+
••
R & M TRUST"· KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP
585
Chandrashekar Hegde v. B.C.C., ILR (1988) Karnataka 356, referred A
to.
3.1. The sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation must be
invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant litigant and not for the
persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of publicity. Courts
should be very slow in entertaining petitions involving publi.: interest in B
very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is
meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and
not for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common
for unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the
rights of innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. C
This has become very handy to the developers and in matters of public
contracts. In order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the
service of the innocent people or organization in filing public interest
litigation. The Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions
without understanding the implication and giving a handle in the hands
of the authorities to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise D
this jurisdiction lightly but should exercise in very rare and few cases
involving public interest of large number of people who cannot afford
litigation and are made to suffer at the hands of the authorities.
(604-G; 605-A-CJ
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., SLP (C) E
No. 26269 of 2004 decided on 14.12.2004, relied on.
Ba/co Employees" Union (Regd) v. Union of India and Ors., [2002[ 2
SCC 333; State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhai/al Bhai and Ors., AIR
(1964) SC 1006; Rabindra Nath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., F
AIR (1970) SC 470; Durga Prasad v. The Chief Controller of Imports and
Exports and Ors., AIR (1970) SC 769; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The
International Airport Authority of India and Ors., AIR (1979) SC 1628; Ashok
Kumar Mishra and Anr. v. Collector, Raipur and Ors., AIR (1980) SC 112
and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, [1995[ 4 SCC 683, referred to.
3.2. Delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The third party interest
created on account of delay cannot be disturbed. In the instant case, the
construction was already started by the appellants in 1987 and building
G
had come up to three floors. Thereafter it was stopped in 1988 and in
March, 1991 it resumed after permission was granted. The Writ Petition H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A was filed in November, 1991; meanwhile almost construction was complete.
Therefore, delay was fatal as rightly held by the Sing;e Judge. [610-B, Cf
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1415of1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.98 of the Karnataka High
B Court in W.A. No. 1955/93 and W.A. No. 777 of 1993.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 1416 and 1417 of 1999.
Uday Holla and T.R. Andhyarujina, B. Prasad, A.S. Bhasme, K..T.
C Anantharaman, R. Jawaharlal, Atul Bhatia, Vasudevan Raghavan, R.Jagannath
Goulay, P. Narasimhan, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, K. Lingaraja
and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. MATHUR, J. This appeal and connected appeals were filed against
D the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kamataka High Court dated
2nd July, 1998 whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No.
1955 of 1993 alongwith Writ Appeal No. 777 of 1993.
Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are - the
Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a Public
E Interest petition challenging the building licence issued for construction of
multi-storeyed/ multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in llnd and lllrd
Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the ground that it is
illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and direction to demolish
the building already constructed on the site. It was submitted that the residents
p
in the area had acquired sites and built houses on the understanding and
under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be developed and maintained
in accordance with law. Grievance of the Association was, the menace of
multi-storeyed and multi-apartments buildings in the Bangalore city particularly
in Koramangala lay-out which is considered to be a posh and prestigious layout, had been increasing. Many property developers, investors in buildings
G and speculators in real estate were alleged to have started their activities
which are detrimental to the quality of life of the residents of the area. Multistoreyed buildings and multi-apartment buildings were causing strain on the
public amenities. It was alleged that the property developers by using their
influence and money are getting licences against the statutory prohibitions.
H The appellant relied upon the decision given in case of Chandrashekar Hegde
,..
••
t •
R& MTRUSTv. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP [A.K. MATHUR, J.)587
v. B.C.C., ILR (I 988) Karnataka 356, (Single Bench) to contend that the A
Corporation was not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites
to build multi-storeyed and multi-family dwelling units. It was alleged that
the scheme under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, I 945 and Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 provided for construction of residential
houses and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of buildings in
violation of law and with the object of inflating the money market of the B
builders. It was alleged that in Writ Petition No. 7599 of I 987, the Kamataka
High Court directed the Corporation not to issue licences to any third party
for putting up multi-storeyed and multi-family dwelling apartments in the
sites allotted by the B.D.A. It was further alleged that after the judgment in
December, I 987, one of the appellants represented to Respondent Nos. I and C
2 to re-examine the licences already issued for putting up multi-storeyed
building and multi-family apartments in the light of the law laid down by the
Kamataka High Court. In response to that, respondent sent communications
to all the licensees to stop further construction. The Writ Appeal No. 306 of
1988 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the
Division Bench on 14th December, 1988 which is noted as Pee Kay D
Constructions v. Chandrashekar Hegde, ILR (1989) Kamataka, 241.
In this background, the present Public Interest Litigation was filed which
came up before a single Judge. In this petition, the building licence No. LP
169/87-88 issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 i.e. Mis R & M Trust by E
Respondent No. I - the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, for construction·
of multi-storey building was stopped by letter dated 4.4.1988. This letter was
withdrawn by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Deputy Director of Town Planning
Corporation of the City of Bangalore, by its letter dated 26th March, 1991.
On receipt of this letter, Appellant /Respondent No. 4 resumed the construction.
This action of the Respondent No. 3 permitting the Appellant /Respondent F
No. 4 to proceed with the construction was challenged to be arbitrary, illegal,
unjustified and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution besides being in
violation of law, by the Respondent Association, alleging that issue of licence
in favour of Appellant/Respondent No. 4 is illegal and without jurisdiction.
The following prayers were made in the Writ Petition which reads as under: G
(i)
Call for records from Respondents I to 3 pertaining to building
licence issued in R-1 's No. LP. 353/87-88 for putting up a Multistoryed/Multi-apartment building on Site No. 443, III Cross, III
Block, Koramangal, Bangalore - 560 034;
(ii) Declare as illegal and void building licence No. LP. 353/87-88 H
588
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) I S.C.R.
issued by R-1 for the construction of a Multi-storyed/Multiapartment building on Site No. 443, III Cross, III Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034;
(iii) Direct R-1 to demolish the construction already put up on Site
No. 443, III Cross, Ill Block, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560 034
B
by having recourse to Section 321 of the K.M.C. Act, I 973
(Karnataka Oct I 4 of I 977) and other related provisions of that
Act; and
c
(iv) Grant such other or further relief that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit under the circumstances including costs."
This was contested by the Respondents and the learned single Judge
after hearing the parties held - "I have no hesitation to hold that licences
granted to Respondent No. 4 in these Writ Petitions are contrary to law in
view of the law laid down in the case of Pee Kay Constructions."
D
But the learned Single Judge felt that the petition filed by the Writ
Petitioner suffered from !aches and delay and, therefore, dismissed the Writ
Petition on the grounds of delay and !aches. It was observed that the dismissal
of Writ Petitions will not prevent the Corporation from taking any action
permissible under the law. Aggrieved against the present order passed by the
learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal was filed _and it was alleged
E that the Writ Petition does not suffer from any delay or !aches nor any third
party interest was created. However, the respondents contested this Writ
Appeal, they did not file the appeal against the aforesaid order but submitted
that the law laid down in Pee Kay Constructions case (Supra) was not a good
law and the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that licence
F granted to respondents was contrary to law. The Division Bench after hearing
the parties observed that the law laid down in Chandrashekar Hegde v.
B.C.C., !LR (1988) Karnataka 356 and Pee Kay Constructions case (Supra)
is correct law. Thereafter, the Division Bench examined the question of delay
and !aches. After reviewing the facts the Division Bench held that there is no
delay and !aches in preferring the writ petition. It was held that building
G licence was issued in favour of appellant-builder on 19th August, 1987 and
on 3rd October, 1987. The Commencement Certificate was issued on 13th
October, 1987 and 23rd November, 1987 and the Chandra Shekhar Hegde 's
Case was decided on I 4/15/l 6th December, 1987 wherein it was held that the
Corporation was not justified in granting licence to the owners of the sites to
H put up multi-storyed/multi-family dwelling units and the appeal was dismissed
\
~
.
'
-+
••
R& MTRUSTv. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCEGROUP[A.K. MATHUR,J.]589
on 14th December, 1988. On 4th April, 1988, the Respondent Corporation A
issued a letter to the builders directing them to stop construction. The
construction remained suspended upto 26th March, 1991, when letter was
issued to builder revoking to stop construction order, permitting them to
proceed with the construction. This Writ Petition was filed in the first week
of November, 1991, as public interest litigation. The explanation for the
delay was that the office bearers made enquiries from the office of Corporation B
the reasons for withdrawing of direction to stop work but in vain, met the
authorities of Corporation Respondent No.3 on several occasions and then by
a letter dated 7th October, 1991, requested to furnish the copies of certificate
but the copies were not furnished. They protested that there was no justifiable
reason for such withdrawal. They also explained that the building is permitted C
to be constructed at Site No.403 which is a narrow road, the residents of area
will be subjected to great inconvenience but without any result. It was also
contended that the third party right had not been created. After the grant of
permission, the construction proceeded. However, Appellant/Respondent in
their turn submitted that the third party interest had already been created
because the 4th Respondent has issued shares on 21st May, 1988 and some D
of the flats have been sold out. However, Division Bench did not accept the
plea of the third party interest being created in the matter. The Division
Bench observed that when the original files of Corporation were summoned
by the Court, it was found that between 4th April, 1988 and 14th February,
1991 nothing transpired. However, the builder on 14th February, 1991 E
requested for permission to complete the construction mainly on the ground
that substantial amount has been spent on purchase of site and on construction
of ground with three floor building. This letter was perused by the Deputy
Director of Town Planning on 20th March, 1991 which was submitted to
Commissioner on 21st March, 1991. It was observed that all similar cases be
put up where building is completed with full structural work as per sanctioned F
plan prior to judgment. It was found that there was no note by the Deputy
Director regarding Appellant/Respondent. Thereafter on 25th March, 1991,
the order was passed by the Commissioner that he perused the note and
discuss the matter with CE and the DDTP and considered the matter, he
directed that the notice be withdrawn and permission be accorded to complete G
the building as per sanctioned plan. The Division Bench observed that these
notes clearly show non-application of mind and that the action of the
respondent was not in accordance with law and was passed without giving
any reasons. Thereafter, the Division Bench concluded that the view taken by
the learned Single Judge is right that the licence granted in favour of
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. The H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
A Division Bench further held that they did not agree with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition suffered from delay and laches
and accordingly, allowed the Writ Appeal, set aside the order of learned
Single Judge dismissing the same on the ground of delay and laches and
affirmed the finding that the licence granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 4
B and 5 is illegal and quashed the licence issued in favour of Repondentbuilder, and also quashed the order of Respondent Corporation dated 26th
March, 1991 allowing Respondent-builder to continue with the construction
and directed Respondent No. I to demolish the illegal construction put up on
Site Nos. 403 and 443. It was further directed that the construction as raised
by them is illegal and they were liable to bear the expenses for demolition
C of the construction and Respondent Nos. I and 3 are liable to pay costs to
the writ petitioner.
Aggrieved by this order, the present special leave petitions were filed
and leave was granted and operation of the order was stayed.
D
The learned counsel for the appellant has seriously raised the objection
of entertaining this belated Public Interest Litigation and he submitted that
this was nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Secondly, he submitted
that the licence which had been granted for construction by the RespondentCorporation was fully justified and no illegality was committed.
E
All the three appeals Civil Appeal No. 1415 of 1999, Civil Appeal No.
1416 of 1999 and Civil Appeal No. 1417 of 1999 arise against the order
passed by the Division Bench. Civil Appeal No. 1417 of 1999 have been
filed by bona fide purchasers of flats in the building, whereas CA 1415/99
& CA 1416/99 have been filed by builders ..
F
Now, in order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellants, it
may be necessary to dilate upon some facts of CA 1415/99. Property No.
443, 2nd Cross, 3rd Block, Koramangala Extension, Bangalore, was allotted
by the City Improvement Trust Board to Dr. Alice Duraiswamy on 4th March,
1971 and he was also put up in possession of this schedule land. The Bangalore
G Development Authority, successors in interest of City Improvement Trust
Board sold the schedule land in favour of Dr. Alice Duraisamy under a
registered Sale Deed dated 27th March, 1981. Dr. Alice Duraiswamy then
sold the land in favour of one Mis Batra Developments under a registered
Sale Deed dated 12th June, 1987. The development and planning of the City
of Bangalore and construction of the building thereon were governed by the
H Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the Outline Development Plan
,.
R& M TRUST''- KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP [A.K. MA THUR, J.J 59 J
and the Comprehensive Development Plan as well as the Zoning Regulations A
framed thereunder. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore also framed
Bye-Laws in conformity with the Development Plan and the Zoning
Regulations. In accordance, therewith, Mis Batra Developments applied for
and obtained licence from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for
construction of basement, ground and three upper floors on 3rd October,
1987. And thereafter, the construction commenced and by 3rd April, 1988, B
the basement and ground floor of the building had been completed. On 4th
April, 1988, the construction was stopped on the basis of the decision of the
Kamataka High Court in Pee Kay Constructions Case. Thereafter, the High
Court of Karnataka in a case known as Happy Home Builders Case held that
when once a licence is granted by the Corporation Authorities, the Corporation C
cannot stop construction of building. Mis Batra Developments thereafter made
a representation to the Corporation Authorities and submitted that the
substantial portion of the building has been completed and considerable
investment have been made and the licence granted thereof is in accordance
with the Building Plan and therefore, they may be permitted to complete the
construction. The Corporation Authorities after taking into consideration the D
representation, permitted Mis Batra Developments to proceed with the
construction. Mis Batra Development entered into an agreement of sale with
Mis Raj Trust on 16th June, 1989. Consequent to the said agreement under
the Development Agreement dated 8th May, 1991 between Mis Raj Trust
and the appellant, the construction proceeded. When the building was E
practically completed during November, 1991, the present Writ Petition was
filed challenging the very licence issued on 3rd October, 1987. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of !aches. It was
pointed out that the building was occupied by 12 families and the grant of
licence has been declared to be invalid after 11 years, but the Division Bench
did not agree and directed demolition of building on the basis of Pee Kay F
Constructions case. Therefore, the question now arises for our consideration
is whether the issue of licence on 3rd October, 1987 by Corporation was
valid or not.
Similarly, in the another Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1999, the question
of law is identical but facts are little different. In this case, on 16th July, G
1969, City Improvement Trust Board allotted a site bearing No. 403,
Kormangala measuring 80' x 120 (9600 sq.ft.) (Schedule property) to Mr.
U.L. Nagraj. On 13th July, 1982, absolute Sale Deed was executed bv
Bangalore Development Authority in favour of Mr. U.L. Nagraj with follr·
conditions:
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005) I S.C.R.
A
"That the schedule site shall be held by the second party and enjoyed
_.
the rents and profits etc. received thereof, be enjoyed subject to the following
conditions:-
(!) The building to be constructed shall be used whole for human
habitation and shall not include any apartments to the building
B
whether attached thereto or not used as a shop or a building of
warehouse or building in which manufactory are conducted by
mechanical power or otherwise."
Thereafter, on 4th March, 1982/16th April, 1987, a Sale Deed executed
by Mr. U.L. Nagraj in favour of Mrs. Ratna Lachman Bhojwani. Mrs. Ratna
C Lachman Bhojwani sold schedule property in favour of the appellant. On
17th August, I 987, the plan was approved for construction of ground plus
three upper floors plus mezzanine floor. A licence was issued by the
Corporation of City of Bangalore. The plan was sanctioned for a period of
two years as per orders of the Commissioner from 17th August, 1987 to 16th
August, I 989. One of the conditions was that the construction should be done
D within two years. The appellant started the construction immediately. On
13th October, 1987, the Commencement Certificate was issued, as per Building
Bye-Laws. On 21st May, I 988, a share certificate was issued entitled them
to ownership offlats .. Then, on 4th April, 1988 the B.C.C. asked the respondent
to stop the work in the light of Pee Kay Constructions case. It was alleged
E by appellant that the entire building except the terrace of last floor had been
completed. On 29th March, 1989, another decision was given by the Karnataka
high Court in the case of Happy Home Builders wherein it was held that the
construction have been carried out in pursuance of the sanction given by the
B.C.C. and Corporation is estopped from stopping such construction. This
F
G
H
order of learned Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench which reads
as under :
"Delay of 14 days in filing W.A. Nos. 1145 to 1151 of 1989 and
18 days in filing of W.A. No. 1182/89 is condoned as sufficient cause
is shown.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and find that in the
circumstances of this case, without going into the question of the
powers of the authorities to grant licence contrary to section 505 of
the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, the judgment of the learned
Single Judge can be sustained on the ground that there has been an
unexplained delay on the part of the Corporation in taking timely
action against the builders/owners. The Corporation is estopped from
••
...
R&MTRUSTv. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIG!LANCEGROUP[A.K. MATHUR,J.] 593
taking any action in view of its own conduct in allowing the builders A
to raise construction on the basis of the licences which were granted
in contravention of the provisions of Section 505 and in allowing the
building to be occupied.
3. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment of the
learned Single judge, without expressing any opinion on the question B
of law, does not call for interference. Consequently the appeals are
dismissed. However time is granted to the Corporation for compliance
of the judgment of the learned Single Judge upto 5th August, 1989."
On the basis of this judgment a representation was made by appellant
& Corporation revoked their letter of stopping construction. That gave rise to C
present PIL.
It is also relevant to mention here that a Special leave Petition was filed
against the Pee Kay Constructions Case before this Court and this Court
disposed of that S.L.P. without going into the merits of the judgment of the
High Court. The order of the High Court was modified in following terms : D
"Leave granted.
After hearing counsel for both the parties and giving them
sufficient time to obtain instructions, we are of the opinion that, in
the circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to go into the merits E
of the judgment of the High Court but that the judgment of the High
Court be modified as set out below.
It is a fact that the appellants have constructed two floors of the
building : the ground floor and the first floor alongwith the basement.
In our opinion, the interests of justice require that they should not be F
asked to demolish it. It is enough if they are restrained from
constructing a second and third floor as originally planned.
The High Court has also held that the appellants can have only
one residential unit on the site. Counsel for the respondents points out
that the appellants have submitted a revised plan to the Corporation, G
subsequent to the judgment of the High Court, by which they seek
approval of the construction of a single residential unit on the ground
floor and a single residential unit on the first floor, and that, in the
circumstances, they will not object to this revised plan being approved.
On the other hand, counsel for the appellant requests that he may be H
594
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2005] I S.C.R.
allowed to construct three residential units on the ground floor and
the first floor as originally planned. After hearing both sides at some
length, we are of the opinion that the appellants may be permitted to
have two (not three) residential units on each of the two floors. There
should however be no construction above and beyond the first floor
of the property and the property should not be used for any purpose
other than residential purpose. We direct accordingly. This is an
arrangement broadly agreed to by both the parties.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as
to costs.
We direct that the revised plan submitted to the Corporation by
the appellants subsequent to the decision of the High Court but
modified so as to have two flats or apartments on each of the floors
instead of one be approved by the Corporation and the authorities.
Constructions on the site will stand otherwise restricted on the lines
already indicated above."
t
The S.L.P. was accordingly disposed of but the ratio laid down in the
I
Pee Kay Constructions case was not examined by this Court on merit. In fact,
the S.L.P. was disposed of with the agreement of both the parties.
E
And the third C.A. No. 1417 of 1999 was filed by Motor Industries
Company Limited who have purchased two flats in this building for about
Rs. 21.1 "lakhs on 21.2.1994 and the same are in occupation of its employees.
It is alleged that the petitioner who had bought these flats, was neither aware
of the controversy pertaining to the building nor about any order by any
court. It was also alleged that the number of persons has purchased flats in
F this residential building and they are facing the similar predicament. Hence,
these three appeals are before us for the final disposal.
Before we address to the questions raised with regard to the
maintainability of the present public interest litigation and the delay in filing
the same, we may examine necessary provisions of law bearing on the subject.
G The first Act with which we are concerned is the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1961 ). This
Act primarily deals with the planned growth of land use and development
and for the making and execution of Town Planning Scheme in the State of
Karnataka. By this Act the entire planning of State governed and the Town
H Planning Schemes are made for development of the State. Development plan
v.·
R& MTRUST v. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP [A.K. MA THUR, J.J595
means Outline Development Plan or Comprehensive Development Plan A
prepared under this Act. Section 14 of the Act lays down enforcement of the
outline development plan and the regulations. It says that from the date when
this Act come into force every land use, every change in land use and every
development in the area covered by the plan shall confonn to the provisions
of this Act, the Outline Development Plan and the regulations. It further
stipulates that no such change in land use or development shall .be made B
except with the written permission of the Planning Authority. Therefore, the
whole purpose of this Act is the plan development of the State.
The next is the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (hereinafter
to be referred to as the 'Act of 1945') and the Rules framed therein with C
which we are concerned, are known as the City of Bangalore Improvement
(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Rules
of 1964 '). We are primarily concerned with this Act and the Rules,
subsequently this Act of 1945 and Rules of 1964 have been repealed and
they have been replaced by the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976,
and the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites ) Rules, 1982. D
The entire controversy centres around these Acts and the Rules. The third
Act with which we are concerned is the Karnataka Municipal Corporations
Act, 1976. Under this Act the Bangalore Municipal Corporation granted
pennission to the appellant for raising one plus three floors. As per the Act
of 1945 , allotment was to be made with conditions that they will have to E
deposit certain amount and then they will construct and complete the building
in the manner provided. As per the Act of 1945 schemes are prepared by the
Board and after preparation of the scheme and obtaining necessary approval
from the Government, allotments are made as per the Rules and Bye-laws.
The sites are allotted as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1964. The allottees are
treated as lessee under Rule 6. Rule 7 deals with the applications for allotment F
in Form I and after completion of necessary deposits those who are eligible
for allotment, sites are allotted to them under Rule I 0. Rule 17 deals with the
conditions of allotment and sale of site. Under sub-rule (4), after all other
fonnalities have been made i.e. payment of the lease money, allottee is
intimated about the actual measurement of the site and particulars thereof and G
a lease"cum-sale agreement in Form II is executed by the allottee and the
Board and the same is required to be registered by the allottee after constructing
the building on the site in accordance with the plans and designs approved
by the Board. It further stipulates that in case it is considered necessary to
add any additional conditions in the agreement the Board may make such
additions. It also lays down that the approval of the City of Bangalore H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2005) I S.C.R.
A Municipal Corporation for the plans and designs shall be necessary when the
~
lay-out in which the site is situated is transferred to the control of the said
Corporation. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 17 says that the allottee shall comply with
the conditions on the agreement executed by him and the Buildings and other
bye-laws of the Board for the time being in force. Under Sub-rule (6) the
allottee has to construct the house within a period of two years and if the
B building is not constructed within the said period of allotment, the Board
reserves the right to revoke the agreement. Sub-rule (7) lays down that the
site or the building constructed on the plot shall not be alienated during the
period of tenancy. Relevant rules which have bearing on the subject read as
c
D
E
F
G
H
~:
.
"17. Conditions of allotment and sale of site.-
xx
xx
xx
(4) After payment under sub-rule (2) is made the Board shall
intimate the allottee the actual measurement of the site and the
particulars thereof and a lease-cum-sale agreement in Fonn II shall
thereafter be executed by the allottee and the Board and registered by
the allottee. If the agreement is not executed within forty-five days
after the Board has intimated the actual measurement and particulars
of the site to the allottee, the earnest money paid by the allottee may
be forfeited, the allotment ofthe site may be cancelled, and the amount
paid by the allottee after deducting the earnest money refunded to
him. Every allottee shall construct a building on the site in accordance
with the plans and designs approved by the Board. If in any case it
is considered necessary to add any additional conditions in the
agreement the Board may make such additions. Approval of the City
of Bangalore Municipal Corporation for the plans and designs shall
be necessary when the lay-out in which the site is situated is transferred
to the control of the said Corporation.
(5) The allottee shall comply with the conditions on the agreement
executed by him-and the Buildings and other ·bye-laws of the Board
for the'tim.c_ ~ing in.force.
(6) The0aHottee shall construct a building within a period of two
·years from the date of execution of the agreement or such extended
period as the Board may in any specified case by written order penn it.
If the building is not constructed within the said period the allotment
..
f
•
R& MTRUSTv. KORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCEGROUP[A.K. MATHUR,J.J597
may be cancelled, the agreement revoked, the lease determined and A
the allottee evicted from the site by the Board, and after forfeiting
twelve and a half per cent of the value of the site paid by the allottee,
the Board shall refund the balance to the allottee.
(7) The site or the building constructed thereon shall not be
alienated during the period of the tenancy."
B
The lease agreement is required to be executed in Form IL This lease
agreement is called Lease-cum-sale agreement. Form II of the lease agreement
reads as under :
"FORM NO.II
[See rule ..... ]
LEASE-cum-SALE AGREEMENT
An Agreement made this ............. day of.. ................ 196
BETWEEN the City of Bangalore Improvement Trust Board,
Bangalore, hereinafter called the LessorN endor which term shall
wherever the context so permits, mean and include its successors in
interest and assigns of the ONE PART and ........... hereinafter called
c
D
Lessee/Purchaser (which term shall wherever the context so permits
mean and include his/ her heirs, executors, administrators and legal E
representatives) of the Other PART;
Whereas the City of Bangalore Improvement Trust Board
advertised for sale building sites in .............