V LAKSHMIPATHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the residents of Banashankari Extension I Stage, Block-I, which includes a part of N. R. Colony and Ashokanagar, have embarked on public interest litigation actuated by common cause in defence of public interest. The petitioners are aggrieved by the location and operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in alleged gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners are questioning industrial activity in residential locality by establishing and running factories, work-shops, factory sheds, manufacture of greases and lubricating oils by distillation process and also production of inflammable products by respondents-17 to 49. According to the petitioners, these questionable activities are being carried on in the area comprising of Sy. Nos. 39/1, 39/2A and 39/28 of Yediyur Nagasandra village, Bangalore. The land situate in Sy. No. 39/1 is called "Vajapeyam Terrace Gardens" and the land in Sy. Nos. 39/2A and 39/28 are known as 'Kalyani Gardens'. It appears that in respect of these areas, agreements were executed between the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board (C.I.T.B.) and their owners and successors for the purpose of formation of a lay-out in accordance with law, but the agreements were not implemented for reasons best known to the said Board. It is stated that the Health and Municipal Administration Department of the State of Karnataka issued a direction bearing No. HMA 35 MNX 72 dated 4-7-1972 to the erstwhile C.I.T.B. to handover the said areas to the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (Respondent-14 herein). However, it appears that the direction was not acted upon and these areas were not handed over to the Corporation. Nevertheless in spite of the fact that the said areas were not handed over to the Corporation, taxes as being imposed and collected by the Corporation. The petitioners have stated that there are portions which are not converted though they are reserved Kharab land granted in accordance with the Land Grant Rules falling within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and strangely enough the revenue authorities have failed to exercise jurisdiction and control over these portions and have not enforced the provisions of relevant law, rules and regulations in respect of these lands. In other words, the entire area falling in Sy. Nos. 39/1, 39/2A and 39/2B became virtually "no man's land" because of alleged inaction and abdication of power and control by the development authority including the erstwhile C.I.T.B., the Bangalore Development Authority, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and the revenue authorities of the State Government thereby resulting in betrayal of public interest on account of imperviousness to duty, callousness, non-feasance and utter lack of supervisory, administrative and regulatory control over the area in question. The petitioners have also complained of the serious threat to public health on account of environmental hazards posed by the industries and industrial activity. According to the petitioners, the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 have been violated and the establishment and running of the industries in the area are contrary to the Outline Development Plan and zoning of land use as dictated by statute. It is specifically alleged that some of the industries have been floated under licences said to have been issued by the Village Panchayat of Kathiraguppe even though the said area falls within the village Yediyur Nagasandra beyond the limits of Kathiraguppe village and, therefore, beyond jurisdiction. However, it is pointed out that these industrial units have succeeded in securing public services and utilities such as electricity, water etc., from respondents 12 and 13 to which they are not legally entitled. It is also stated that in the light of Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, there could be no change in land use contrary to the act and no authority could grant any licence for user of the land contrary to what the said provision earmarks. In short, the allegation is that the establishment of these industrial units is ab initio illegal. In regard to Sy. No. 39/1, the petitioners have impeached that various orders and directions issued by the competent authorities for the purpose of execution of agreements with the erstwhile C.I.T.B. in order to obtain sanction of building plans etc., have been flagrantly flouted and transfer of lands have been effected by the jugglery of dissolution and reconstitution of partnerships from time to time for the purpose of manoeuvring in order to locate industries contrary to law, by devious methods circumventing Outline Development Plan and Comprehensive Development Plan. The petitioners have taken strong exception to extensive area of lands reserved by Government being appropriated for private use and activities on consistent with law without a check. A case on hand is specifically mentioned by the petitioners wherein one Mrs. Seethamma executed an agreement in favour of the erstwhile C.I.T.B. On 22-10-1973 in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 39/2A and 39/2B based on an alleged sanction of a lay-out for industrial purpose, the sanction being subsequent to 47-1972 when the Health and Municipal Administration Department of the Government of Karnataka had directed the erstwhile C.I.T.B. to handover the area vide order No. HMA 35 MNX 72 dated 4-7-1972. The petitioners have pointed out that sanction for industrial purpose is itself ab initio illegal since it was in contravention of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act as well at the Outline Development Plan which declared the said area as residential zone. It is also pointed out that none of the conditions incorporated in the aforesaid agreement dated 22-10-1973 were complied with, the conditions being (a) maintenance of open space as required and in accordance with the sanctioned plans; (b) prohibition on use of sites without the approval of the erstwhile C.I.T.B.; (c) prohibition on alteration of the dimensions as approved in the plan; (d) intimation of date of commencement and programme of execution of lay-out work under the supervision of the Engineers of the erstwhile C.I.T.B. and (e) due compliance with the rules, regulations, bye-laws and standing orders regarding obtaining of licences.

(2.) Non-compliance with the said conditions entail by virtue of a penal clause in the said agreement, withdrawal of the sanction and acquisition of the property and dealing with the same in accordance with rules.

(3.) It is alleged that in a part of the 'Kalyani Garden' exists a temple dedicated to Sri Raghavendra Swamy Brindavana under a deed of trust dated 29-7-1974 to be run by a trust called "Sathyabhamamma Seethamma Kalyani Raghavendra Ashrama". For the purpose of access to the said temple, the entire area of Sy. No. 39/2B was required to be reserved; but it was encroached upon by various industries thereby preventing access to the residents and devotees. The result is that they have to wend their way through a labyrinth of industries. It is alleged that the onward course for passage running through Sy. No. 39/2B towards 6th Cross Road of Ashokanagar is via 30 road running within Sy. No. 39/1 as set out in the plan approved by the erstwhile C. I. T. B. vide its resolution No. 776 dated 12-2-1969 and resolution No. 492 dated 3-3-1971. But the said road is not properly laid out by the C.I.T.B./B.D.A. nor is it maintained properly by the said bodies and, on the other hand, the passage has been treated as a private road in disregard of the approved plan as well as the resolutions and to cap it all the road is closed on its southern side. It is alleged that constructions have been put up even in the road portion contrary to law and all this has happened with impunity at the hands of the concerned authorities who are enjoined with the responsibility of enforcement of law. This has resulted in detriment to public interest since it is the only road leading to the temple. The petitioners in particular have complained of acute pollution affecting the environment on account of persistent, offensive and unwholesome escape of pollutants such as smoke, vapour and noxious emanations posing danger to health and hygiene of the residents. According to the petitioners, noise pollution is added to the misery of the residents of the locality day in and day out depriving them of a clean environment, quality of life, peace and tranquillity reasonably expected in a residential area.