Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31695 of 2011) and Civil Appeal No. 10749 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33184 of 2011). Case: 1. Purushotham, 2. Mrs. Ramadevi, 3. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs 1. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors., 3. Subramanya and Ors., [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. 10750 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33319 of 2011)]. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011), Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31695 of 2011) and Civil Appeal No. 10749 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33184 of 2011) |
| Judges | Surinder Singh Nijjar and A.K. Sikri, JJ. |
| Issue | Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 2, 38A, 38A(1), 38A(2), 38(2); Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1991; Bangalore Development Authority (Civic Amenity Site) Allotment Rules, 1989 - Rules 3, 3(1) |
| Judgement Date | November 29, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.
-
Leave granted.
-
These four appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011, SLP (C) No. 31695 of 2011, SLP (C) No. 33184 of 2011 and SLP (C) No. 33319 of 2011, impugn the judgment of a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 (BDA-PIL), and Writ Petition No. 5173 of 2006 (GM-RES/PIL), whereby the High Court has declared the allotment of civic amenity site No. 2 to Bharat Petroleum Corporation (Respondent No. 3) for establishment of a petrol pump, null and void. The writ petitions have been allowed. The allotment dated 4th August, 2005 made in favour of Respondent No. 3 has been set aside.
-
The facts as narrated in C.A. No. 10747 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011 are as under:
• On 29th August, 1990 a Notification was issued by the State of Karnataka Government under Section 2bb(vi) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "BDA Act, 1976") to the effect that the amenities such as liquefied petroleum gas godowns, retail domestic fuel depots, petrol retail outlets are the "civic amenities" for the purposes of the aforesaid Act.
• Thereafter, the State Government issued another Notification on 29th April, 1994, inviting objections or suggestions to the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan of Bangalore City Planning Area, prepared under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), which had been provisionally approved by the Government.
• On 5th January, 1995, Site No. 2 is reserved for civic amenities (hereinafter referred to as "CA Site No. 2")
• On 31st January, 2000, Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "BDA") passed Resolution No. 28 of 2000 empowering the Chairman or the Commissioner to allot Civil Amenity Site to any Government Body, State or Central Government undertaking.
• On 1st January, 2001, BDA allotted CA Site No. 2 and 3 in HRBR Layout III Block each measuring 2195.35 sq. mtrs. and 629.18 sq. mtrs. in favour of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as "BWSSB") on lease for a period of 30 years for the purpose of service station and pump house.
• On 28th March, 2002, a detailed representation was submitted by one Mr. Padmanabha Reddy on the subject: Requisition for Allotment of Civic Amenity Site No. 2 & 3 in HRBR UI Block, Bangalore-43 as park. It was pointed out in this representation that the III Block of the HRBR Layout is a residential layout, with homes situated, chock-a-block, with absolutely no ventilation space. It was pointed out that in these circumstances, the provision for a park/ventilation space is a crying-need of the locality. The representation also mentions that the objectors had an opportunity to go through the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan-2011 (RCDP) pertaining to District No. 7, which clearly showed that, a squarish block of land, situated on the western side of Civic Amenity site wherein the BWSSB has already housed the Twin Ground Level reservoirs had been earmarked for a park. The other surprise in store in the RCDP was the earmarking of CA Site No. 2, which was the bone of contention, as Commercial Area/Zone. It is pointed out that in reality, much before 1995, when the RCDP had allegedly been finalized, the BDA had already accomplished the task of converting this squarish block of land into residential sites and either allotted or auctioned such sites. The land had been clearly shown as earmarked for a park or a playground. Another similar block of land, which was also earmarked to be developed as a park has continued to be used as a burial ground. The representations also brought to the notice of the BDA sentiments expressed by this Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54. Particular attention of the authorities was drawn to Paragraphs 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 37 and 48 with the comment that the observations made in the aforesaid paragraphs reflect the aspirations of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 (Petitioners in the High Court). Legally it was stated that the action of the BDA is contrary to Section 38A(2) of the BDA Act, 1976. It was ultimately stated that the land on which, now, reservoirs had been developed was beyond "redemption and resumption". The other area earmarked for the park can not be used as a park since it has already been used as a graveyard. Their only intention was to save the remaining part which has now been allotted for the use as the petrol pump.
• On 9th February, 2005, the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial