advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Allotment of civic amenity sites = Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 a civic amenity site could not have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other than the one for which such area is reserved. Since the site in question was earmarked/reserved for “bank”, it could not have been allotted for use as a petrol pump. - High court declared the allotment as null and void- Apex court confirmed the same and dismiss the appeal = Civil Appeal No.10747/2013 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).31690/2011 PURUSHOTHAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41037

 Allotment of civic amenity sites = 
Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976  a civic amenity site could  not
         have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other
        than the one for which such area is reserved.  Since  the  site  in
        question was earmarked/reserved for “bank”, it could not have  been
        allotted for use as a petrol pump. - High court declared the allotment as null and void- Apex court confirmed the same and dismiss the appeal =

the High Court has concluded -


           “We are satisfied that civil amenity site no. 2, at the time  of
           its allotment to respondent no.3 was expressly earmarked for use
           as “bank”. The aforesaid position has remained unaltered to this
           day. In terms of the mandate contained in Section  38-A  of  the
           Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19776  it  could  not  have
           been leased, sold or otherwise, transferred  for  purpose  other
           than the one “….for which such  area  is  reserved”.  Since  the
           civil  amenity  site  in  question  was  earmarked/reserved  for
           “bank”, we are satisfied that it could not  have  been  allotted
           for use as a “petrol station”.


      16.        From the above, it is evident that in fact,  the  site  had
      been originally earmarked to be developed as a public  park/playground
      in 1984. However, since the same has been converted to  a  residential
      area, respondents Nos. 4 to 14 have very fairly stated that  it  could
      not at this stage be restored to its original purpose without  causing
      havoc in the  lives  of  the  residents.  They  have,  therefore,  not
      insisted that the site be restored to its original purpose.


      17.        We also do not find any merit in the  submission  that  the
      term civic amenities would permit BDA to change the  reservation  from
      one particular user to another without the necessary amendment in  the
      development plan.  This would be contrary to the law laid down by this
      Court in the case of B.S. Muddappa (supra).
      18.        We also do not find any substance in the  submissions  that
      the High Court has wrongly distinguished the judgment of  the  earlier
      Division Bench of the High Court in Aicoboo  Nagar  Residents  Welfare
      Association (supra). 
A perusal of the paragraph 10  of  the  aforesaid
      judgment clearly shows that in that case, the  High  Court  considered
      the legality of allotment of civic amenity site no.3.  
There  was,  in
      fact, no change in the activity/purpose, as  the  site  had  not  been
      reserved for any specific purpose. 
The other question was 
whether  the
      lease in favour of the government company for opening  of  petrol  and
      diesel outlet would fall within the definition of  civic  amenity. 
 In
      the present case, it was not the case of the respondent nos. 4  to  14
      that petrol pump is not a civic amenity, therefore, the site could not
      have been allotted to  open  a  petrol  pump.  
The  grievance  of  the respondents (writ petitioners  in  the  High  Court)  was  that  civic amenity site no.2 had been earmarked for  a  bank  and  could  not  be allotted for a petrol pump without making necessary amendment  in  the site.  
Therefore,  the  High  Court  has  rightly  distinguished   the
      aforesaid judgment and not relied upon the same.
      19.        We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals  and  the  same
      are hereby dismissed.

ITEM NO.1B               COURT NO.9             SECTION IVA

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No.10747/2013 @
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).31690/2011

PURUSHOTHAM                                       Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                         Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal No.10748/2013 @
SLP(C) NO. 31695 of 2011

Civil Appeal No.10749/2013 @
SLP(C) NO. 33184 of 2011

Civil Appeal No.10750/2013 @
SLP(C) NO. 33319 of 2011

Date: 29/11/2013  These matters were called on for pronouncement of
    Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
                     Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.

                        Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.
                     Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan
For Respondent(s)
                     Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni,Adv.
                     Ms. Anitha Shenoy ,Adv
                     Mr. Rajesh Mahale ,Adv

                        Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.
                     Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan ,Adv

           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                               O R D E R

                 Leave granted.


                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh  Nijjar  pronounced  the
        Judgment of the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mr.
        Justice A.K. Sikri.
                 For the reasons recorded in the signed Reportable Judgment,
        the Appeals are dismissed.


        |(Vishal Anand)                        | |(Indu Bala Kapur)                   |
|Court Master                          | |Court Master                        |


             (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.10747 OF 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31690 of 2011)


      Purushottam                                            …Appellant
      VERSUS
      State of Karnataka & Ors.                        ...Respondents
                                    With
                        Civil Appeal No.10748 of 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C)  No. 31695 of 2011)


      Mrs. Ramadevi                                          …Appellant
      VERSUS
      Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
                                    With
                        Civil Appeal No.10749 of 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C)  No. 33184 of 2011)


      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited     …Appellant
      VERSUS
      Subramanya & Ors.                                  ...Respondents


                                    With
                        Civil Appeal No.10750 of 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33319 of 2011)


      Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited    …Appellant
      VERSUS
      Dr. Harish V. Iyer & Ors.                          ...Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T
      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
     1. Leave granted.

     2. 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.

     3. 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 representationist also brought to the notice  of
              the BDA sentiments expressed by this Court  in  the  case  of
              Bangalore  Medical  Trust  Vs.  B.S.   Muddappa   &   Ors.[1]
              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 Government passed  an  order
              for continuation of revised CDP 1995 till 2015.

            • On 30th June, 2005, Bharat Petroleum Corporation  (respondent
              No.3) requested BDA to allot land for development of a retail
              outlet.

            • On 4th August, 2005, BDA allotted CA Site No.2 in  favour  of
              respondent No.3.

            • Thereafter, on 7th October, 2005, the  lease  deed  was  duly
              executed between BDA and respondent No.3 for a period  of  30
              years.  Dealership licence was granted in favour of  wife  of
              the appellant by respondent No.3 on 4th February, 2006.

            • Thereafter on 21st February, 2006, BDA has approved the  plan
              for establishment of petrol  pump  in  favour  of  respondent
              No.3.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, Writ  Petition  No.
              5428 of 2006 and others were  filed  in  public  interest  to
              challenge the  decision  of    BDA
              dated  21st  February,  2006  with  a  prayer  to  quash  the
              allotment of CA Site No.2 in favour of  respondent  No.3  for
              establishing a petrol pump and to convert the same to a  park
              for the elderly and a playground for the young.

     4. By the impugned judgment, the  Division  Bench  of  Karnataka  High
        Court on interpretation of Section 38A concluded that the allotment
        was in violation of Section 38A sub-section (2).   The  High  Court
        has concluded that CA Site No.2 at the time  of  its  allotment  to
        respondent  No.3  was  expressly  earmarked  for  use  as   “bank”.
        Therefore, in terms of Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976  could  not
        have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other
        than the one for which such area is reserved.  Since  the  site  in
        question was earmarked/reserved for “bank”, it could not have  been
        allotted for use as a petrol pump. The High Court  also  held  that
        the allotment of the site was null  and  void  as  it  was  not  in
        consonance of Section 38A sub-section (2).  The High Court  further
        observed that even though both “bank” and “petrol pump”  are  civic
        amenities within the meaning of Section 2(bb) of the BDA Act, 1976,
        yet the mandate of Section 38A is clear and unambiguous.  It is for
        the very civic amenity, for which the area is reserved,  for  which
        it has to be put to use.

     5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
     6. It is submitted by the learned counsel  that  the  High  Court  has
        erred in holding that any area of particular civic  amenity  cannot
        be subsequently changed to another user which also falls within the
        definition of a civic amenity.  It  is  submitted  by  the  learned
        senior counsel appearing for all the appellants that the High Court
        has failed to appreciate that the sites still remain allotted to  a
        civic amenity.  Merely, because the  user  has  been  changed  from
        public park to bank and now to petrol pump would  not  violate  the
        provisions contained in Section 38A(1) and (2).   It  is  submitted
        that since the Notification was duly issued that petrol pump  would
        be a civic amenity as provided under Section 2(bb)(vi) of the  Act,
        there was no violation of Section 38A(2).
     7. Learned counsel for the appellants  have  submitted  that  in  fact
        there is no resolution passed by the BDA to show that the  site  in
        question has been earmarked for a bank.  It  is  further  submitted
        that the change of purpose or user for a particular piece  of  land
        as a civic amenity is permissible under Rule 3(1) of the  Bangalore
        Development Authority (Civic Amenity Site)  Allotment  Rules,  1989
        (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “BDAA  Rules,  1989”)  as  amended.
        According to the learned senior counsel, once the land is  reserved
        as  a  civic  amenity  and  allotted  in  favour  of  a  Government
        department or statutory authority of the  Central  Government,  the
        BDA Rules, 1989 has no application.  It was further submitted  that
        the Division Bench has erred in distinguishing the earlier judgment
        of the Division Bench of the same  Court  Aicoboo  Nagar  Residents
        Welfare Association & Anr.  Vs.  Bangalore  Development  Authority,
        Bangalore & Anr.[2] in which it has been  clearly  laid  down  that
        “the use of site  as  a  civic  amenity  for  the  distribution  of
        petroleum products also  would  come  within  the  scope  of  civic
        amenity”.
     8. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA and the  State  of  Karnataka
        have supported the case pleaded by the appellants. Learned  counsel
        appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 14, however, submitted that  the
        High Court has correctly interpreted Section 38A(1)  and  (2)  that
        any area reserved for a particular civic amenity cannot be diverted
        to any other civic amenity on the ground that civic  amenity  is  a
        general term.  According to the learned counsel,  the  judgment  of
        the High Court is in consonance with the  law  laid  down  by  this
        Court in the case of B.S. Muddappa (supra).  The aforesaid judgment
        has been subsequently followed by this Court in R.K. Mittal &  Ors.
        Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[3]  It has been submitted that in
        view of the law declared by this Court, the  impugned  judgment  of
        the High Court does not call for any interference.
     9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel  for
        the parties.
    10. In our opinion, it is no longer necessary for us  to  consider  the
        issues raised by the appellants on first principle, as the issue is
        no longer res integra.  In the case of B.S. Muddappa (supra),  this
        Court examined the entire issue wherein, it has been held “that the
        legislative  intent  of   the   Bangalore   Development   Authority
        (Amendment) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as “BDA  (Amendment)
        Act, 1991”), which came into force w.e.f. 16th January, 1991 is  to
        prevent the diversion of the user of an area reserved for a  public
        park or playground or civic amenity to another user.
    11. Original Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 has been substituted with
        the present Section 38A w.e.f. 21st April,  1984,  which  reads  as
        under:-
           “‘38-A. Grant of area reserved for civic amenities etc.—


           (1) The Authority  shall  have  the  power  to  lease,  sell  or
           otherwise transfer any area reserved for civic amenities for the
           purpose for which such area is reserved.


           (2) The Authority shall not sell or  otherwise  dispose  of  any
           area  reserved  for  public  parks  and  playgrounds  and  civic
           amenities, for any other purpose and  any  disposition  so  made
           shall be null and void:


           Provided that where the allottee commits breach of  any  of  the
           conditions of allotment,  the  Authority  shall  have  right  to
           resume such site after affording an opportunity of  being  heard
           to such allottee.”
    12. Interpreting the aforesaid provision, this Court has held as under:-


           “This new Section 38-A, as clarified in the Statement of Objects
           and Reasons and in the Explanatory Statement  attached  to  L.A.
           Bill 6 of 1991, removed the prohibition against lease or sale or
           any other transfer of any area reserved  for  a  civic  amenity,
           provided the transfer is for the same purpose for which the area
           has been reserved. This means that once an area has been stamped
           with the character of a particular civic amenity by  reservation
           of that area for purpose, it cannot be diverted to any other use
           even when it is transferred to another party. The  rationale  of
           this restriction is that  the  scheme  once  sanctioned  by  the
           government must operate universally and the areas allocated  for
           particular objects must not be diverted to other  objects.  This
           means that a site for a school or hospital or  any  other  civic
           amenity must remain reserved for that purpose, although the site
           itself may change hands. This is the purpose of sub-section  (1)
           of Section 38-A as now substituted. Sub-section (2)  of  Section
           38-A, on the other hand, emphasises the  conceptual  distinction
           between ‘public parks and playgrounds’ forming one  category  of
           ‘space’ and ‘civic amenities’ forming another category of sites.
           While public parks and playgrounds cannot be parted with by  the
           BDA for transfer to private hands by reason of  their  statutory
           dedication to the general public, other areas reserved for civic
           amenities may be transferred to private parties for the specific
           purposes for  which  those  areas  are  reserved.  There  is  no
           prohibition, as such, against transfer of open  spaces  reserved
           for  public  parks  or   playgrounds,   whether   or   not   for
           consideration, but the transfer is limited to public authorities
           and their user is limited to the purposes  for  which  they  are
           reserved under the scheme. The distinction is that while  public
           parks and playgrounds are dedicated to the public at  large  for
           common use, and must therefore remain  with  the  State  or  its
           instrumentalities, such as the BDA or a Municipal Corporation or
           any other authority, the civic amenities are not  so  dedicated,
           but only reserved for particular or special purposes……………………


           24. Protection of the environment, open  spaces  for  recreation
           and fresh air,  playgrounds  for  children,  promenade  for  the
           residents, and other conveniences or amenities  are  matters  of
           great public concern and of vital interest to be taken  care  of
           in a development scheme. It is that  public  interest  which  is
           sought to be promoted by the Act by establishing  the  BDA.  The
           public interest in the  reservation  and  preservation  of  open
           spaces for parks and playgrounds cannot be sacrificed by leasing
           or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to  some
           other user. Any such act would be contrary  to  the  legislative
           intent  and  inconsistent  with  the   statutory   requirements.
           Furthermore,  it  would  be  in   direct   conflict   with   the
           constitutional mandate  to  ensure  that  any  State  action  is
           inspired by the basic values of individual freedom  and  dignity
           and addressed to the attainment of a quality of life which makes
           the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens.

           25. Reservation of open spaces  for  parks  and  playgrounds  is
           universally recognised as a  legitimate  exercise  of  statutory
           power rationally related to the protection of the  residents  of
           the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation.


           27. The statutes in force in India  and  abroad  reserving  open
           spaces for parks and playgrounds are the legislative attempt  to
           eliminate the misery of disreputable housing condition caused by
           urbanisation. Crowded urban areas tend to spread disease,  crime
           and immorality. As stated by the U.S. Supreme  Court  in  Samuel
           Berman v. Andrew Parker: (L Ed pp. 37-38 : US pp. 32-33)


                 “… They may also  suffocate  the  spirit  by  reducing  the
                 people who live there to the status  of  cattle.  They  may
                 indeed make living an almost insufferable burden. They  may
                 also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which  robs
                 it of charm, which makes it a place from  which  men  turn.
                 The misery of housing may despoil a community  as  an  open
                 sewer may ruin a river.


                 … The concept of the public welfare is broad and  inclusive
                 …. The values  it  represents  are  spiritual  as  well  as
                 physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is  within  the
                 power of the legislature to determine  that  the  community
                 should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as
                 clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the
                 present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have
                 made determinations that take into account a  wide  variety
                 of values ….” (Per Douglas, J.).”
    13. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are a complete answer to
        all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.




    14. This apart on the interpretation of Section  38A(1)  and  (2),  the
        inescapable conclusion is that under Section  38A  (1),  BDA  would
        have the authority to lease, sell or otherwise  transfer  any  area
        reserved for the purpose for which such area is  reserved,  and  no
        other.  This clearly means that the  Government  can  pass  on  the
        responsibility to another concern, be  it  individual,  company  or
        corporation for the purposes of carrying on the activity for  which
        the plot has been reserved as a civic amenity.  It does not give  a
        licence to the BDA to convert the area reserved for civic amenities
        for activities which do not fall within  the  definition  of  civic
        amenities.  Sub-section (2) of Section 38 is an embargo  that  even
        such sale or disposal otherwise of  an  area  reserved  for  public
        parks, playground  would  not  be  permitted  to  private  parties.
        Though such spaces, playgrounds and parks  can  be  transferred  to
        public authorities, but their user would be limited to the purposes
        for  which  they  are  reserved  under  the  scheme.   In  case,  a
        disposition is made for a purpose other than the one for  which  it
        is reserved, the Act has declared that, it shall be null and  void.
        In our opinion, Rule 3 of  which  the  support  is  sought  by  the
        appellants can not be permitted to override the statutory provision
        contained in Section 38A(1) and (2).  Even otherwise, the rule only
        reiterates the statutory provision in Section 38A(1) and  (2).   We
        also do not find any substance in the submission that the site  was
        never allotted as a bank, and, therefore, it could be allotted as a
        petrol pump. The High Court upon perusal of the pleadings  as  well
        as annexure ‘c’ appended to the  writ  petition  has  recorded  the
        following facts :
           “In so far as the factual matrix is concerned, it  is  necessary
           to record that the site in question was originally earmarked  as
           park/playground  in   1984.   This   factual   position   stands
           acknowledged at the hands of the Bangalore Development Authority
           in paragraph 5 of its  counter  affidavit.  Subsequently,  three
           civic amenity sites came to be carved out, in the  area  earlier
           earmarked for park/play ground. The first of these is  presently
           being used by the Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Board. The
           second site, which is the one in question was earmarked for  use
           as a “bank”. So far as the  instant  aspect  of  the  matter  is
           concerned, our attention has been invited to Annexure-C appended
           to the writ petition, wherein civic amenity site no.2  has  been
           shown as earmarked for “bank”. The aforesaid Annexure-C came  to
           be executed on 06.01.1996. Civil amenity site no.2  is  indicted
           therein, as measuring 2195.35 sq. meters. In the  column  titled
           “purpose for which earmarked”, Annexure-C specifies  “bank”.  It
           is the contention of the petitioners that,  civic  amenity  site
           no.2 which was earmarked exclusively for use as “bank” has never
           undergone any change at the hands of the  Bangalore  Development
           Authority. Civic amenity site no. 3  is  not  relevant  for  the
           instant case, and as such we refrain, for  reasons  of  brevity,
           from recording any details in connection therewith.”


      15.  Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel  for
      the parties,
 the High Court has concluded -


           “We are satisfied that civil amenity site no. 2, at the time  of
           its allotment to respondent no.3 was expressly earmarked for use
           as “bank”. The aforesaid position has remained unaltered to this
           day. In terms of the mandate contained in Section  38-A  of  the
           Bangalore Development Authority Act, 19776  it  could  not  have
           been leased, sold or otherwise, transferred  for  purpose  other
           than the one “….for which such  area  is  reserved”.  Since  the
           civil  amenity  site  in  question  was  earmarked/reserved  for
           “bank”, we are satisfied that it could not  have  been  allotted
           for use as a “petrol station”.


      16.        From the above, it is evident that in fact,  the  site  had
      been originally earmarked to be developed as a public  park/playground
      in 1984. However, since the same has been converted to  a  residential
      area, respondents Nos. 4 to 14 have very fairly stated that  it  could
      not at this stage be restored to its original purpose without  causing
      havoc in the  lives  of  the  residents.  They  have,  therefore,  not
      insisted that the site be restored to its original purpose.


      17.        We also do not find any merit in the  submission  that  the
      term civic amenities would permit BDA to change the  reservation  from
      one particular user to another without the necessary amendment in  the
      development plan.  This would be contrary to the law laid down by this
      Court in the case of B.S. Muddappa (supra).
      18.        We also do not find any substance in the  submissions  that
      the High Court has wrongly distinguished the judgment of  the  earlier
      Division Bench of the High Court in Aicoboo  Nagar  Residents  Welfare
      Association (supra). 
A perusal of the paragraph 10  of  the  aforesaid
      judgment clearly shows that in that case, the  High  Court  considered
      the legality of allotment of civic amenity site no.3.  
There  was,  in
      fact, no change in the activity/purpose, as  the  site  had  not  been
      reserved for any specific purpose. 
The other question was 
whether  the
      lease in favour of the government company for opening  of  petrol  and
      diesel outlet would fall within the definition of  civic  amenity. 
 In
      the present case, it was not the case of the respondent nos. 4  to  14
      that petrol pump is not a civic amenity, therefore, the site could not
      have been allotted to  open  a  petrol  pump.  
The  grievance  of  the respondents (writ petitioners  in  the  High  Court)  was  that  civic amenity site no.2 had been earmarked for  a  bank  and  could  not  be allotted for a petrol pump without making necessary amendment  in  the site.  
Therefore,  the  High  Court  has  rightly  distinguished   the
      aforesaid judgment and not relied upon the same.
      19.        We, therefore, find no merit in the appeals  and  the  same
      are hereby dismissed.



                                             ...………………….….….J.
                                                      [Surinder  Singh
                                             Nijjar]








                                             ………………………….J.
                                             [A.K.Sikri]
        New Delhi;
        November 29, 2013.

-----------------------
[1]      (1991`) 4 SCC 54
[2]      ILR 2002 Kar. 4705
[3]      (2012) 2 SCC 232

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.