M D NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996, hereinafter called the 'act', has been challenged in this public interest litigation on the grounds that the impugned legislation is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act is alleged to have been passed with an object to render ineffective all binding judicial pronouncements between the parties which is not only unwarranted, but also unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is intended to authorise the judicially determined illegal constructions and thus affect the supremacy of Rule of Law. The Act is stated to have the effect of undoing the undertakings given by the parties to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is contended to have the effect of setting aside the adjudication of the disputes between the parties made by the highest Court in the country. The act has been termed to be an abortive attempt of the legislature to exercise judicial power which is impermissible under the doctrine of separation of powers. It is further submitted that the impugned Act is intended to defeat public interest by conferring favours to few individuals. The act is termed to be a colourable piece of legislation.

(2.) THE almost admitted facts necessitating the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner, along with other property owners in the locality of 9th Main Road, Rajmahal Vilas extension, Bangalore, had filed Writ Petition Nos. 3386 and 3387 of 1981 against the respondents challenging the building licence granted in their favour for construction of eight storeyed residential premises building on the properties belonging to the 5th, 7th and 8th respondents. It was alleged that the impugned licences were granted in contravention of the outline Development Plan and Zonal Regulations framed for the city of Bangalore under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'principal Act'. The petitions were filed at the time of the commencement of the constructions of the building by respondents 6, 7 and 8. As the learned Single Judge did not grant any interim prayer in Writ Petition No. 3386 of 1981, the writ petitioners filed Writ Appeal No. 725 of 1981 wherein interim order was granted by the Division Bench restraining the builders from constructing the building. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the builders filed S. L. P. No. 4940 of 1981 with prayer for setting aside the interim order. The hon'ble Supreme Court vacated the interim order subject to the builders giving an undertaking to the effect that in the event of the writ petition being decided against them, they would have no objection for the demolition of the portions of the building raised by them. The builders filed undertakings, one of which is attached with the petitions as Annexure-B. Similarly, in Writ petition No. 3387 of 1981 the interim stay was refused on 21-4-1981 against which Writ Appeal no. 898 of 1981 was filed before the Division Bench. In the writ appeal, the builders gave an undertaking in the same terms in which the undertaking was given before the Supreme Court. Each purchaser and occupier of the flats in the aforesaid building also gave individual undertakings stating therein that they were aware of the pending proceedings in the Courts and agreed to vacate the premises without objection if so required on the orders of the Court without claiming any compensation for vacating the said premises. Writ Petition Nos. 3386 of 1981 and 3387 of 1981 were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11-6-1982. The impugned licences were declared illegal and a command was issued to the second respondent to modify the licence so as to bring it in conformity with the Outline Development Plan and the zonal Regulations appended thereto promulgated under Section 13{4) of the main Act and thereafter to pass further necessary orders and to take consequential action in accordance with law.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 3 and 4 filed Civil Appeal Nos. 2780 and 2781 of 1982 in the Hon'ble Supreme court which, vide its order dated 5-10-1982, made it clear that the construction of the building was subject to the result of the appeals and that the appellants were required to give undertakings themselves and also to obtain the undertakings by the occupants. Copies of the undertakings filed in obedience to the directions of the Court are attached with the petition as Annexures-E, F, g and II. The said civil appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19-1-1987 vide judgment reported in B. K. Srinivasan and Another v State of Karnataka and Others. After the disposal of the civil appeals by the Supreme Court, some of the occupants of the premises filed writ Petition Nos. 10261 and 10262 of 1987 challenging the action of the Commissioner in implementing the writ issued by this Court vide its order dated 11-6-1982 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide the order dated 29-10-1987, Annexure-J. In obedience to the directions of the Court and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the occupiers of the building, the respondent-Commissioner passed an order on 8-4-1988 to the effect that the 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the two buildings be demolished. Vide his order dated 13-4-1988 the Deputy Director of Town Planning issued public notice to the occupants of the multistoreyed building situated at nos. 51 to 54, 9th Main, 6th Cross, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, and Nos. 26 and 27, 9th Main Road, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore. After hearing the concerned, the commissioner ordered that the three upper floors viz. , 6th, 7th and 8th floors of the two buildings be demolished. 45 days time was allowed to the occupants of the upper three floors to vacate the premises under their occupation. The action of the Commissioner, Bangalore City, was again challenged in another set of writ petitions bearing Nos. 7475 to 7477 of 1988 which were disposed of by this Court on 13-11-1990 vide the order Annexure-K. The plea of the occupants tbat they could not be evicted in implementation of the writ directions, was rejected. Writ Appeal Nos. 59 to 75 of 1991 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench on 17-1-1991 vide Annexure-L with the observations that: "these cases had chequered history. It is classic example of how by the ingenuity of the parties they could try to outwit the law and even remain defiant to the orders of the highest Court of law behaving as though Article 141 of the Constitution of India does not exist". After the disposal of the Writ Petition Nos. 7475 to 7477 of 1988 the petitioners issued legal notice to the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, calling upon him to demolish the three unauthorised and illegal floors of the building in dispute. Again, after the dismissal of writ Appeal Nos. 59 to 75 of 1991 another notice was issued to the Commissioner on 5-3-1991 with the same request. As the Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation, did not comply with the Court directions, C. C. C. Nos. 904 and 905 of 1991 were filed in this Court. In the aforesaid cases, a Division Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 23-1-1992 directed the Commissioner to evict the occupants of the apartments in the unauthorised floors. The Commissioner reported compliance of the directions along with the report of Executive Engineer, vide Annexure-P. In contempt of Court cases, the respondent-Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporation, sought various extensions of time to comply with the Court directions. After the adjudication of all the disputes between the parties and during the pendency of the contempt petitions, the impugned legislation was passed with the alleged object of frustrating the Court orders and pronouncements made in the litigation spread over for about a period of 15 years.