WITHOUT PERMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLAINNING AUTHORITY AND STATE - NO PROJECT SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT WITH THEIR MODIFIED PROPOSALS the Project Proponents could not have directly approached the Planning Authority for approval of modified proposal, which was replete with deviations from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read with the PTR. This is so because the right in favour of the Project Proponents to carry on development work on the lands referred to in the FWA and the PTR would enure only in conformity with the stipulations and specifications in the stated documents. It is not open to the Project Proponents to develop the land in any other manner, unless permitted by the State.

 WITHOUT PERMISSION AND APPROVAL OF PLAINNING AUTHORITY AND STATE - NO PROJECT SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT WITH THEIR MODIFIED PROPOSALS
the Project Proponents could not have directly approached   the   Planning   Authority   for   approval   of   modified proposal, which was replete with deviations from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read with the PTR.   This is so because the right in favour of the Project Proponents to carry on development work on the lands referred to in the FWA and the PTR would enure only in conformity with the stipulations and specifications in the stated documents.   It is not open to the Project Proponents to develop the land in any other manner, unless permitted by the State.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2116­2128/2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 326­338/2020)
Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor
Area Planning Authority & Anr.    …Appellant(s)
Versus
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprise Limited & Ors.           ...Respondent(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2129­2141/2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3166­3178/2020)
J U D G M E N T
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. These   appeals   filed   by   Bangalore   Mysore   Infrastructure
Corridor Area Planning Authority1
  and the State of Karnataka2
are   directed   against   the   common   judgment   and   order   dated
1 For short, “the Planning Authority”
2 For short, “the State”
2
15.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru3
in Writ Petition Nos. 16576­16577/2015 and 18481­18491/2015
(GM­RES), whereby the High Court quashed the communication
bearing   No.   BMICAPA/339/Praa.Pra.Pa./1541/2011­12   dated
7.2.2015   issued   by   the   Planning   Authority   rejecting   the
application made by the respondent No. 1 – Nandi Infrastructure
Corridor   Enterprise   Limited4
  and   respondent   No.   2   ­   Nandi
Economic   Corridor   Enterprises   Limited5,6
,   dated   5.5.2012,   for
permission   to   develop   a   group   housing   scheme   under   the
Framework   Agreement   dated   3.4.19977
  in   different   survey
numbers at Kommagatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk (at interchanges 5/7 of peripheral road) covering 42 acres
30 guntas of land.   The High Court additionally directed the
Planning Authority to issue Commencement Certificate to the
Project Proponents in terms of application dated 5.5.2012, within
six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the High Court’s
order.
3 For short, “the High Court”
4 For short, “NICE”
5 For short, “NECE”
6 NICE and NECE are jointly referred to as “the Project Proponents”, for short
7 For short, “the FWA”
3
2. This   is   the   fifth   round   of   litigation   pertaining   to   the
Integrated Infrastructure Corridor and Finance Project8
 situated
between   Bangalore   and   Mysore,   Karnataka,   consisting   of
residential, industrial and commercial facilities, such as, among
other   things,   self­sustaining   Townships,   expressways,   utilities
and amenities including power plants, industrial plants, water
treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural   developments,   as
more specifically described in the Infrastructure Corridor Project
Technical Report9
 dated August, 1995, as amended.
3. The first round of litigation was in the form of a public
interest litigation filed by H.T. Somashekar Reddy before the High
Court, questioning the requirement of land for the Project as per
the FWA for development of industrial infrastructure facilities
(residential, commercial, industrial etc.) and to quash the FWA
besides directing an enquiry to be conducted by Central Bureau
of Investigation10.   That challenge was rejected by the Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   vide   judgment   and   order   dated
21.9.1998 in Writ Petition No. 29221/199711 and which decision
8 For short, “the IICFP” or “the Project”
9 For short, “the PTR”
10 For short, “the CBI”
11 Reported as H.T. Somashekar Reddy vs. Government of Karnataka & Anr., 1998 SCC
Online Kar 609
4
came to be affirmed by this Court on 26.3.1999 in SLP(C) No.
4922/1999, dismissing the said special leave petition in limine. 
4. The second round of litigation was at the instance of J.C.
Madhuswamy   and   Srirama   Reddy,   again   a   public   interest
litigation to question the land acquisition proceedings initiated by
the State for implementation of the Project.  The main grouse in
this petition was about excess land being acquired for real estate
purpose  near  Bangalore   at  interchange   areas   to   pass   on   the
benefit   to   the   Project   Proponents   and   illegal   sale   of   land   for
construction of Bangalore Exhibition Centre.  The group of writ
petitions   raising   aforementioned   challenge   being   Writ   Petition
Nos.   45334/2004   (GM­RES­PIL),   45386/2004   (PIL­LA­KIADB)
and 48981/2004 (GM­RES­PIL) came to be disposed of by the
Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated
3.5.2005,   resulting   in   dismissal   of   stated   writ   petitions   and
issuance of a direction to the State to continue to implement the
Project.   That decision was affirmed by this Court in  State  of
Karnataka & Anr. Vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation
& Ors.12
. 
12 (2006) 4 SCC 683
5
5. The third round of litigation was at the instance of one M.
Nagabhushana, challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated
for implementation of the Project.  That challenge was rejected by
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   in   Writ   Appeal   No.
1192/2007 vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2010.  The said
proceedings culminated with the decision of this Court in  M.
Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.13
. 
6. The fourth round of litigation was initiated by Abraham T.J.
in reference to allegations of illegality and offences committed
under   the   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act   in   the   course   of
implementation   of   the   Project.     That   culminated   with   the
dismissal of SLP(Crl.) No. 397/2017 vide order dated 5.9.2018
and R.P.(Crl.) 647/2018 in the dismissed SLP vide order dated
11.12.2018 by this Court.
7. The present (fifth) round of litigation, however is by the
Project Proponents themselves, who had applied to the Planning
Authority   for   grant   of   permission   for   construction   of   group
housing scheme at the stated location(s).  That permission having
been rejected on 7.2.2015, subject writ petitions were filed before
13 (2011) 3 SCC 408
6
the High Court, which have been disposed of by the common
judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 of the Division Bench, in
the following terms: ­
“ORDER
(i)    Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Communication   bearing   No.   BMICAPA/339/Praa.
Pra. Pa/1541/20 11­12 dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure­A)
issued   by   first   respondent   to   the   petitioner   is   hereby
quashed.
(iii) A   writ   of   mandamus   is   issued   directing   first
respondent to issue commencement certificate as sought
for   by   the   petitioner   in   its   application   bearing   No.
NECE//05/170   dated   05.05.2012   (Annexure­G)
expeditiously and at any rate, within an outer limit of 6
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) Costs made easy.”
8. Considering the fact that this is the fifth round of litigation
before this Court and that the importance of the Project has
already been taken note of in the earlier decisions, we deem it
apposite to confine to the factual matrix essential to answer the
matters in issue in reference to the relief granted by the High
Court vide impugned judgment.
9. Shorn of unnecessary details, the State and the NICE had
executed the FWA on 3.4.1997, setting out various terms for the
purposes of developing the proposed infrastructure corridor.  The
7
FWA was followed by supplementary agreements dated 6.10.1999
and   31.3.2000   between   the   same   parties.     Besides   the
supplementary agreements, a Tripartite Agreement was executed
between the State, NICE and NECE on 9.8.2002. 
10. The FWA delineates the location(s)/areas where the five selfsustaining   Townships   were   to   be   set   up.     The   subsequent
agreements between the State and the Project Proponents do not
alter   the   substance   of   that   dispensation.     The   FWA   makes
reference to provisions in the PTR in respect of certain matters.
11. Indeed, the Outline Development Plan14/Master Plan was
prepared by the Planning Authority for the new planning area on
12.2.2004 and had received approval of the State.  However, the
ODP/Master Plan was not intended to materially change or alter
the location(s) for Townships specified in the FWA. 
12. The State in exercise of its powers under the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 196115, made amendments to
the Zonal Regulations of ODP/Master Plan of various towns and
cities permitting the single plot  usage for residential  purpose
subject to certain conditions vide notification dated 10.3.2006. 
14 For short, “the ODP”
15 For short, “the KTCP Act”
8
13. In the backdrop of the stated agreements, ODP/Master Plan
and the amendment to Zonal Regulations of ODP/Master Plan,
the Project Proponents submitted an application on 6.1.2012 to
the Planning Authority for sanction of group housing scheme in
53 acres 5 guntas of land, which included lands transferred to
the   Project   Proponents   under   sale   deeds   and   notified   under
Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
196616
. 
14. Later   on,   the   Project   Proponents   submitted   modified
development plan on 5.5.2012 for permission to set up group
housing scheme in 42 acres 30 guntas of land by excluding the
lands in respect of which no sale deed was executed in their
favour.  The Planning Authority vide letter dated 28.5.2012 called
upon   the   Project   Proponents   to   furnish   certain   documents,
namely,   sketches,   No   Objection   Certificates   (NOCs),   detailed
project report etc., since in its view, the application submitted by
the   Project   Proponents   was   defective   in   that   regard.     The
Planning Authority also moved a proposal to place the matter for
approval before the High­Level/Empowered Committee. 
16 For short, “the KIADA Act”
9
15. The   Project   Proponents   submitted   the   clarifications   and
documents  in  support  of  the  modified  development  plan  vide
communication   dated   6.6.2012   and   5.7.2012.     The   Planning
Authority, however, vide letter dated 17.7.2012 called upon the
Project   Proponents   to   furnish   more   documents   i.e.   RTCs,
clarification pertaining to the possession over the proposed land
and NOC for water supply in support of their application.  The
Project Proponents claimed to have submitted NOC received from
the   Karnataka   Fire   and   Emergency   Services   Department   on
10.9.2012. 
16. The Planning Authority in its 34th General Meeting convened
on   12.9.2012   resolved   that   the   application   of   the   Project
Proponents   be   placed   before   the   High­Level/Empowered
Committee for decision.  As a consequence of this resolution, the
Planning   Authority   vide   letter   dated   3.11.2012   directed   the
Project Proponents to stop work on proposed lands till a decision
was   taken   by   the   High­Level/Empowered   Committee,   having
noticed that some unauthorised road construction activity was
being   carried   out   by   the   Project   Proponents.     The   Planning
Authority   had   thus   kept   the   modified   development   plan
10
submitted by the Project Proponents in abeyance till the decision
of the High­Level/Empowered Committee. 
17. Once   again,   the   Planning   Authority   vide   letter   dated
15.1.2013 directed the Project Proponents to stop unauthorised
work   of   construction   of   road,   laying   of   water   pipeline   and
electricity   cables   in   the   concerned   area.     In   response,   on
23.3.2013,   the   Project   Proponents   requested   the   Planning
Authority   to   issue   necessary   approvals   (Commencement
Certificates) against their request letters including letter dated
5.5.2012.   The Planning Authority vide letter dated 30.4.2013,
informed the Project Proponents that appropriate decision would
be taken on the modified development plan dated 5.5.2012 only
after   the   decision   of   the   High­Level/Empowered   Committee.
Accordingly, the Project Proponents were once again asked to
stop all construction activities until final decision on the proposal
was taken. 
18. The Project Proponents then filed Writ Petition Nos. 57249­
57250/2013 (GM­RES) and 57266­57267/2013 (GM­RES) before
the   High   Court   for   quashing   of   the   decision   of   the   Planning
Authority taken in its 34th  General Meeting held on 12.9.2012
11
and   instead   to   grant   approval   in   reference   to   the   modified
development plan dated 5.5.2012.   The Project Proponents had
also sought a declaration that the approvals were deemed to have
been granted in terms of Section 15(2) of the KTCP Act and to
direct the Planning Authority to forthwith issue Commencement
Certificate in reference to the application dated 5.5.2012. 
19. When the said writ petitions were pending, the Principal
Secretary,   Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport
Department of the State, vide letter dated 19.12.2013, directed
the   Planning   Authority   to   await   the   decision   of   the   HighLevel/Empowered Committee constituted under the FWA before
considering the request of the Project Proponents, which would
involve   change   of   land   use   and   approval   of   residential
developments.     On   25.6.2014,   the   Planning   Authority   issued
notice   under   Section   15(4)   of   the   KTCP   Act   to   the   Project
Proponents directing, inter alia, to refrain from taking up the
development   works   at   the   proposed   sites   and   to   remove   the
works already done and restore the land to its original form. 
20. The writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents being Writ
Petition   Nos.   57249­57250/2013   (GM­RES)   and   57266­
12
57267/2013 (GM­RES) came to be disposed of on 16.12.2014
recording the statement of the counsel for the Planning Authority
that   appropriate   decision   would   be   taken   on   the   modified
development   plan   dated   5.5.2012   submitted   by   the   Project
Proponents expeditiously.  The High Court directed the Planning
Authority   to   send   appropriate   communication   to   the   Project
Proponents by 15.3.2015. 
21. Before the decision was taken by the Planning Authority,
the Project Proponents submitted their response to the notice
dated 25.6.2014 issued by the Planning Authority under Section
15(4) of the KTCP Act, on 6.1.2015.  The Planning Authority took
decision   on   7.2.2015   on   the   application   filed   by   the   Project
Proponents dated 5.5.2012 regarding the modified plan for group
housing scheme.  The Planning Authority rejected that proposal,
for   the   reasons   noted   in   the   communication   dated   7.2.2015,
which reads thus: ­
“BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY
SECOND FLOOR, GATE NO.4, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE­560001 TEL:080­22353976 FAX: 080­
22389519
No BMICAPA/339/CC/1541/201 1­12  Date: 07.02.2015
To,
13
Managing Director
M/s. Nandi Economic: Corridor Enterprises Limited.
No.1, Midford House,
M.G. Road, Bangalore
Sir,
Sub: Regarding your application for plan approval for
group  housing in  Sy.  Nos.  17(P),  18,  19,  20/1, 20/3,
20/4,   21/1   (P),   21/2A1   (P),   21/2A2(P),   21/2B(P),
21/2C(P), 21/2D(P) and 21/2E(P), totally measuring 53
Acres­05 Gunte of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
Ref. 1. Order  of  the  Hon’ble  in W.P.  No.57249­
50/2013 (GM.­RES) and 57266­67/2013 (GM­2013 dated
16.12.2014)
2. Your application dated 05.05.2012
3. Your re­application dated 06.01.2015
On   verification   of   your   application   and   documents
following drawback are observed;
1) In the master plan approved by the Government, the
proposed   land   was   earmarked   for   transporl   and
communication, park and open space, public and semi
public   zone.   There   is   no   opportunity   for   residential
building in the said zone. In the plan submitted, lands are
not reserved for park and open space.
2) As   per   Form­15   (EC)   submitted   shows   that
development  agreement  is   entered  with  Umang  Reality
Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the said agreement not submitted.
3) As per sale deed submitted, the proposed lands were
acquired for Stage­1 of Infrastructure Project. (as per FWA
phase­1   included   9.8   k.m.   link   road   and   3   k.m.   of
peripheral road). Further as per sale deed lands has to be
returned to the Government after 30 years and there is no
clarity in the said document about permitting for building
plan in the land. In this regard we have written letter to
PWD   for   information   and   they   have   not   provided   any
information till now. That apart, the proposed land is not
transferred to you for group housing purpose.
4) As per village map, there is a stream (halla) passing
through   east   to   west   in   the   land.   But   in   the   survey
sketch/building plan submitted only portion of the hall is
shown.
14
5) Construction   of   Unauthorized   road   in   the   lands   in
question has been observed
In view of the above, it is hereby informed that, your
proposal is rejected.
Yours sincerely,
Additional Director, Town and Country
Planning and Member Secretary,
              BMICAPA, Bangalore.”
The above communication was assailed by the Project Proponents
before the High Court and it was prayed that a writ be issued
directing   the   Planning   Authority   to   grant   Commencement
Certificate for the proposed group housing scheme.  Those writ
petitions   [Writ   Petition   Nos.   16576­16577/2015   and   18481­
18491/2015 (GM­RES)] have been disposed of by the Division
Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment. 
22. The High Court, after considering the stand taken by both
the   sides,   formulated   three   points/questions   for   its
consideration, as noted in the impugned judgment, which read
thus: ­
“9…..
(1) Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on
the ground of same not being maintainable as it relates to
discharge   of   contractual   obligations   between   the
petitioner and third respondent?
OR
15
Whether writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the
ground of FWA providing for redressal of grievances of
petitioner to be routed through High Level Committee?
(2) Whether   communication   dated   07.02.2015
­Annexure­A   issued   by   first   respondent   rejecting   the
prayer of the petitioner for approval of development plan
for group housing in the Sy.Nos. indicated therein is liable
to be upheld or quashed?
(3) What order?”
At the outset, the High Court, while considering point No. 1, dealt
with the argument regarding maintainability of writ petitions.  It
referred   to   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in  Tata   Cellular   vs.
Union   of   India17
,  Raunaq   International   Ltd.   vs.   IVR
Construction   Ltd.   &   Ors.18
,  Association   of   Registration
Plates   vs.   Union   of   India   &   Ors.19  and  Michigan   Rubber
(India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
20.  Thereafter,
the High Court proceeded to observe as follows: ­
‘‘15. At   the   outset   it   requires   to   be   noticed   that
petitioners are seeking for quashing of the communication
dated   07.02.2015   (Annexure­A)   addressed   to   the
petitioners whereunder the approval of the plan for Group
Housing   which   requires   to   be   approved   by   BMIC­first
respondent   has   been   rejected.   A   perusal   of   the   said
communication would clearly disclose that nowhere first
respondent has either contended or whispered about non
consideration   of   the   application   submitted   by   the
petitioners on the ground of petitioners having sought for
enforcement of a contractual obligation or on the ground
FWA providing for mechanism to enable the petitioners to
17 (1994) 6 SCC 651
18 (1999) 1 SCC 492
19 (2005) 1 SCC 679
20 (2012) 8 SCC 216
16
work out their right as per said mechanism. On the other
hand,   first   respondent   by   virtue   of   the   said   authority
being the planning authority empowered under the FWA
to   grant   approval,   has   examined   the   prayer   of   the
petitioners for approval of the plan for group housing and
has   rejected   the   same   by   assigning   five   (5)   specific
reasons. It is nowhere stated said application of petitioner
is   not   being   considered   on   account   of   petitioner   is
attempting   to   enforce   a   contractual   obligation   or   said
application   has   to   be   placed   before   High   Level/Power
Committee.  Thus,   prima   facie   contention   of   third
respondent with regard to maintainability of the writ
petitions cannot be accepted.
16.  In   fact,   petitioners   herein   had   approached   this
Court in W.P. No. 57429­50/2013 and connected matters
at the first instance when first respondent had resolved to
refer   said   application   to   High   Level   Committee
whereunder this Court had disposed of the writ petition
by order dated 16.12.2014 based on stand by counsel
appearing for BMIC therein undertaking to consider the
application   on   merits.  In   said   proceedings   third
respondent   herein   was   a   party   and   in   fact,   no
statement  of   objections  had   been   filed  by   the   third
respondent raising contention now raised and thereby
it   would   clearly   indicate   that   third   respondent   is
attempting to improvise its stand stage by stage and
step by step.
17.  In the instant case, petitioner has impugned the
communication   dated   07.02.2005   (Annexure­A)
whereunder application filed by the petitioner for approval
of Group Housing has been rejected and said right of the
petitioner to seek approval stems out of the FWA entered
into   between   the   petitioner   and   GOK   and   the
consequential   agreements.   It   is   agreed   between   the
parties that under clause 3.1.1 it is the obligation of the
GOK   to   use   its   best   efforts   to   grant   and   cause   its
Governmental Instrumentalities, Government of India and
its instrumentalities to grant, all approvals required in
connection   with   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   project
including the approvals indicated in Schedule II of FWA.
The approval under the Town and Country Planning Act,
1961   has   been   referred   at   Sl.   No.   15   of   Schedule   II.
Respondents   ­   1   and   2   being   the   statutory   authority
conferred with the power under the Karnataka Town and
Country   Planning   Act   to   accord   approval   for   the
"Proposed Development Plan" submitted by the petitioner,
17
they   are   required   to   examine   the   application   filed   by
petitioner for Group Housing and approve or reject said
plan in accordance with the statutory provisions. In fact,
petitioner   by   its   communication   dated   03.07.2014
(Annexure­H13)   addressed   to   first   respondent   has
contended that on account of development plan for Group
Housing having not been approved, Section 15 which is a
deeming provision under the Town and Country Planning
Act,   1961   would   be   applicable.  In   other   words,
petitioner   has   sought   for   enforcement   of   statutory
right.   As   such,   the   contention   of   respondents   that
petitioner   has   to   avail   the   remedy   available   under
clause 4.1.2 of FWA cannot be accepted. At the cost of
repetition,   it   requires   to   be   noticed   that   when   the
application of the petitioner for grant of approval of Group
Housing   was   not   disposed   of   by   first   respondent,
petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 57249­
250/2013   and   57266­267/2013   which   came   to   be
disposed   of   by   the   Division   Bench   by   order   dated
16.12.2014 (Annexure­J) in the light of statement made
by   the   Planning   Authority   namely,   first   respondent
herein. The statement so made which came to be recorded
by the Division Bench in the said writ petitions reads:
"2. Before the petitions could be heard on
merits, a statement is proposed to be made
for BMICAPA, which being acceptable to the
petitioners, the petitions are to be disposed of
in terms of the statement as under:
"The applications dated 05.05.2012 and
21.04.2013 (both at Annexure­F in each
set of petitions) shall be considered by
the BMICAPA within a period of three
months and the decisions thereon shall
be communicated to the petitioners by
the BMICAPA on or before 15.03.2015".
3. Accordingly,  making the above statement,
the   order   of   the   Court,   by   consent,   the
petitions   are   disposed   of   in   the   aforesaid
terms, with no order as to costs. Since none
of   the   contentions   of   the   parties   are
considered or pressed at this stage, the rights
and contentions of the parties remain open to
be agitated, if need be, in future."
             (emphasis supplied by
us)
18
18. In the said writ petitions, GOK was also represented
by the Special Government Advocate and the statement
made   by   the   first   respondent   in   the   said   proceedings
would clearly indicate that application of the petitioner
was required to be considered under the provisions of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and as
such, it came to be considered on merits and has been
rejected   on   five   (5)   grounds   as   already   noticed
hereinabove.  Hence,   these   writ   petitions   being
dismissed on the ground of petitioner having remedy
under   the   FWA   does   not   arise.   Petitioner   having
sought   to   enforce   statutory   right   as   well   as   the
impugned communication stemming out of FWA being
challenged   on   the   ground   of   misuse   of   statutory
powers   by   the   respondent   ­   authorities,   contention
raised with regard to maintainability of writ petitions
is   to   be   necessarily   held   as   untenable   and   said
contention is liable to be rejected.
19.  It would not be out of context to state that the very
same   petitioner   had   sought   for   issuance   of
commencement   certificate   for   residential   layout   plan
relating to land measuring 14 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.
27/2A of Kommaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk and 17 acres 39 guntas in Sy. Nos. 164/4(P),
164/5,   165P,   166P,   167/1P,   168(P),   241(P),   242(P),
247(P), 248(P), 252(P) of Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk enclosing therewith layout plan.
Since portions of land in Sy. No. 27/2A measuring 7.27
acres was reflected in ODP as Park, Open space/Traffic
and transportation/agricultural, petitioners herein sought
for   change   of   land   use   and   as   such,   petitioners   had
requested   first   respondent   ­   authority   herein   to
recommend to the Government for change of land use.
This request was turned down by first respondent by its
decision   taken   at   its   33rd   General   Meeting   held   on
29.05.2012 and first respondent had resolved to place the
matter before High Level/Empowered Committee. Being
aggrieved by said decision, petitioner herein approached
this Court in W.P. Nos. 37298­299/2013 and Division
Bench by order dated 22.11.2013 allowed the said writ
petition on the ground first respondent being the Planning
Authority is bound to take its decision in accordance with
Section 14A of the Act. Further direction was also issued
to first respondent to consider the request of petitioner for
change   of   land   use   strictly   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of Section 14A of the Act. Similar direction had
19
also been issued to first respondent by Division Bench of
this Court in W.P. Nos. 37300­301/2013 by order dated
22.11.2013. In the said writ petitions, State namely, third
respondent   herein   had   been   arrayed   as   second
respondent and was represented by learned Advocate and
in the said writ petitions, there was no plea raised with
regard to maintainability of said writ petitions. As such,
third respondent herein cannot be permitted to raise
said  ground  in  these  writ  petitions  by  attempting  to
improve   its   case   step   by   step.   Even   otherwise,   on
merits  also,  we  have  held   said  contention  not  being
tenable for the reasons already recorded.
20.  That   apart,   contract   in   question   also   having
element  of  public   interest,  we  are  of  the  considered
view that writ petitions are maintainable and as such,
contention   raised   regarding   non­maintainability   of
writ petitions stands rejected.’’
(emphasis supplied)
The High Court then considered point No. 2 and by referring to
clause 1.1.3 in the Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002, held
that it was a clear admission of the State that stage­1 of the
infrastructure corridor would include 10 (ten) interchanges and
Townships.  On that basis, the High Court held that the Planning
Authority   ought   not   to   entertain   any   doubt   regarding   the 
Townships being established at the interchanges.   Further, the
High Court in the first round of litigation in H.T. Somashekar
Reddy  (supra) had held that Townships can be established by
the Project Proponents under the FWA.   It extracted paragraph
66 of the said decision in support thereof.  The High Court then
20
examined   the   first   ground   on   which   the   application   dated
5.5.2012 was rejected by the Planning Authority and observed
thus: ­
“23. The   Outline   Development   Plan   (for   short   'ODP')
came to be approved by the Government of Karnataka on
12.02.2002 as per Annexures­L and L­1 respectively and
same would indicate that area proposed by the petitioner
for   putting   up   residential   buildings   would   fall   within
yellow zone/residential zone and thereby plan submitted
by petitioner is in compliance with the zoning regulations
and permitted under the ODP. In fact, plan submitted by
petitioner   along   with   application   dated   05.05.2012,   as
rightly  pointed   out   by   Sri.   D.L.N.   Rao,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   for   petitioner   when   juxtapositioned
with   the   ODP,   it   would   clearly   demonstrate   that   plan
submitted   by   the   petitioner   is   in   conformity   with   the
zoning   regulations.   In   fact,   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   by   its
order dated 03.11.2009 passed in C.P. No. 96/2007 has
directed that project should be completed as per the ODP
dated 12.02.2004.
24.  Under FWA Clauses 3.1.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5 and 3.2.6 it
is incumbent upon Government of Karnataka (for short
'GOK')   to   make   best   efforts   to   grant   and   cause   its
instrumentalities   all   approvals   required   in   connection
with project including approvals specified under Schedule
2 of the agreement whereunder it is clearly specified that
"petitioner   would   receive   the   requisite   permissions,
approvals, sanctions and/or licences...." under the Acts
and Rules of GOI and GOK as specified thereunder. This
would also include granting approval under Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.  In   fact,   under
Clause 3.2.3 it is agreed that GOK would not restrict
the use of land in any way and petitioner would have
freedom and discretion to develop and use the land as
generally contemplated by the agreement and it would
also be incumbent upon the GOK to zone and re­zone
and  caused  to  be  done   in  a  manner  consistent  with
use   in   the   infrastructure   project   as   contemplated
under   the   agreement   and   under   Clause   3.2.5   it   is
understood   by   GOK   that   development   of   townships
would  have  many  components  and  take  many  forms
21
including   the   industries,   businesses   and   services
contemplated in Schedule 4 of FWA.
25. In the light of above findings, contention raised
by   the   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for
respondent No. 3 with regard to petitioners could not
have approached the first respondent directly for plan
approval on the ground that all approvals required in
connection   with   the   infrastructure   corridor   project
had   to   be   granted   by   the   High   Level   Empowered
committee consisting of members from each affected
ministries of GOK, would not hold water and complete
answer  to  such  technical  plea  being  raised  has  been
laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment
rendered  on  20.04.2006   in  the  matter  of  STATE  OF
KARNATAKA   AND   OTHERS   vs.   ALL   INDIA
MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION reported in (2006)
4   SCC   683   whereunder   it   has   been   held   to   the
following effect:
"In the future also, we make it clear that
while   the   State   Government   and   its
instrumentalities   are   entitled   to   exercise
their   contractual   rights   under   the   FWA,
they   must   do   so   fairly,   reasonably   and
without  malafides;   in   the   event   they   do
not   do   so,   the   Court   will   be   entitled   to
interfere with the same."
Hence,   first   ground   on   which   plan
approval/permission   has   been   refused   cannot   be
sustained   and   it   is   liable   to   be   rejected   and
accordingly it stands rejected.’’
(emphasis supplied)
23. The High Court then examined the second ground in the
impugned communication dated 7.2.2015 and observed that the
document was never demanded by the Planning Authority. 
24. While   dealing   with   the   third   ground,   in   the   impugned
communication, it noted that the entire cost of acquisition of the
22
land in question and implementation of the project, was to be
borne and carried out by the Project Proponents.  The State, on
issuing   notification   under   Section   4A(1)   of   the   KTCP   Act   on
13.7.1999, had notified the appellant No. 1 (in C.A. Nos. 2116­
2128/2020)   to   be   a   separate   Planning   Authority   for   the
infrastructure   corridor   in   question.     And   that   Authority   had
prepared ODP/Master Plan for the new planning area.  Relying
on the observations in All India Manufacturers Organisation
(supra), the High Court opined that the lands have been acquired
for the Project which is an integrated infrastructure project and
not   limited   only   to   construction   of   road   as   indicated   in   the
impugned communication.  It once again relied on clause 1.1.3 of
the   Tripartite   Agreement   and   also   the   communication   dated
19.12.2013 and noted that it was not open to the Cabinet to
unilaterally cancel the Tripartite Agreement dated 9.8.2002.   It
then noticed the amendment of Section 2(7a) of the KIADA Act,
which defines “industrial infrastructural facilities”.  It then moved
over to consider the issue about return of the subject lands to the
State Government after 30 years and for that, referred to the
recitals in the sale deeds.  The High Court held that it is agreed
between   the   parties   that   what   is   to   be   transferred   back   is
23
“Transferred   Toll   Road   Assets”,   as   defined   in   the   FWA   on
completion of the concession period.  As regards the “Transferred
Township Assets”, clause 7.2 of the FWA was adverted to and it
concluded as follows: ­
‘‘37.  A   plain   reading   of   expression   "Transferred   Toll
Road Assets", "Transferred Township Assets", along with
Clause 6.8 of FWA, it would indicate that petitioner has
to   transfer   to   GOK   at   the   end   of   concession   period,
"Transferred Toll Road Assets" upon terms and conditions
mutually agreed by the parties as set forth in Clause 6.8.
Thus,  there   is  no  ad­idem  between  the  parties  with
regard   to   townships   being   transferred   by   the
petitioner   to   GOK.   Under   Schedule   5   it   is   more
specifically indicated as to the assets, which are to be
transferred in the township by the petitioner to the GOK.
It reads:
"SCHEDULE 5
Transferred Township Assets
1. Right of way relating to the public roads in
the Townships other than the Toll Road
2. Buildings solely housing municipal offices
3.   Fire   Station   and   related   fire   fighting
equipment
4. Police Station
5. Employment of such employee employed in
connection   with   the   civil   operation   of   the
Township as mutually agreed
6. Such other assets as may be mutually agreed
between GOK and the Company"
Thus,   what   is   agreed   under   FWA   and   supplemental
agreements by petitioner with GOK is to transfer the
assets   of   townships   as   specified   in  Schedule   ­  5   of
FWA and nothing new can be added or read into it.
38.  In fact, contention now raised in the present writ
petition   was   also   the   plea   put   forward   by   State
Government before the Division Bench in the matter of
24
J.C. MADHUSWAMY AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA   AND   OTHERS   in   W.P.   No.   45386/2004
(GM­PIL),   which   came   to   be   considered   and   rejected.
Same was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. ALL
INDIA   MANUFACTURERS   ORGANISATION   reported   in
(2006) 4 SCC 683 whereunder Hon'ble Apex Court has
negatived   said   contention   as   already   observed   herein
above.
39.  Thus, a combined reading of the above clauses
in   the   FWA   and   the   agreements   would   clearly
indicate  as to what assets  would revert back  to  the
Government  and  the  developments  that  would  take
place in the subject lands other than what has been
mentioned in clause 6.8.3 which would revert back to
the  State  Government.  As  such,  plea  now  raised  by
third respondent with regard to township established
by the petitioner is required to be transferred to GOK
cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.”
(emphasis supplied)
The   High   Court   thereafter   adverted   to   the   ODP/Master   Plan
prepared by the Planning Authority and opined that it defines the
developmental activities to be carried out at the interchanges.
After extracting the relevant portion thereof and adverting to the
correspondence between the Public Works Department (PWD) of
the State and the Planning Authority and the discussion during
the 34th  General Meeting of the Planning Authority, the High
Court   concluded   that   interchange   areas   at   link   road   and
peripheral road are permitted for residential developments as per
the FWA.   It then went on to consider the argument of “single
plot” and held that the plan submitted by the Project Proponents
25
was in respect of one single plot, wherein they had proposed to
develop group housing block wise.   The High Court was also
impressed by the argument of the Project Proponents that the
Department of Town and Country Planning in respect of these
very   Project   Proponents   had   granted   approval   for   residential
layout in Survey No. 15/1 (part), 16 & 18 (part) measuring 15
acres   38½   guntas   at   Varashansandra   Village,   Kengeri   Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk for allotting sites to land losers followed
by   issuance   of   Commencement   Certificate   dated   7.3.2014.
Therefore, the High Court went on to observe that it would not lie
in   the   mouth   of   the   Planning   Authority   to   approbate   and
reprobate on the same subject matter.   The High Court also
adverted to the permissions accorded by the Planning Authority
for   setting   up   housing   scheme   by   private   persons   nearby
interchanges.  After referring to those instances, the High Court
concluded that the Planning Authority was adopting policy of
pick and choose for grant of approval or sanction. 
25. As   regards   the   fourth   ground   in   the   impugned
communication, the same was also overturned on the finding
that the Authority committed factual error in that regard.   The
26
High   Court   opined   that   the   plan   submitted   by   the   Project
Proponents did not violate any condition. 
26. Resultantly, the High Court was pleased to set aside the
impugned   communication   dated   7.2.2015   rejecting   the
application preferred by the Project Proponents for permission to
construct group housing scheme at the location(s) referred to in
the   application  dated  5.5.2012 and   issued  a  direction  to  the
Planning Authority to grant Commencement Certificate as sought
by the Project Proponents.
27. Feeling aggrieved, the Planning Authority and the State have
filed separate appeals by special leave, assailing the impugned
judgment.     The   thrust   of   assail   is   that   the   High   Court   has
completely   undermined   the   scheme   of   the   FWA,   which   was
binding on the Project Proponents and the State.   The Project
Proponents could develop the project only as per the specified
components   of   the   Project.     The   FWA   was   founded   on   the
extensive exercise of holistic development of the area as recorded
in   the   PTR.     The   theme  of  the   PTR   was   duly  deliberated   at
different levels and eventually an informed decision was taken by
the Authority to implement the report (PTR) subject to certain
27
changes and modifications.   Consistent with such decision, the
FWA was executed between the Project Proponents and the State.
The terms and conditions set out in the FWA, are self­contained.
The   parties   (Project   Proponents   and   the   State)   are   bound   to
comply with the same in its letter and spirit.  The essence of the
FWA can be traced to the recitals therein.  To wit, the Project was
necessitated to achieve an orderly development of Bangalore as a
major industrial, commercial and residential city in the manner
prescribed.     The   contours   of   development   work   have   been
delineated in such a manner so as to ensure amongst other
things,   self­sustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and
amenities,   including   power   plants,   industrial   plants,   water
treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural   developments,   as
referred to in the PTR dated August, 1995, as amended.   The
development work was to promote industrial, commercial and
economic activities, so as to generate new job opportunities for
the residents in and around the infrastructure corridor, promote
tourism,   decongest   traffic   in   Bangalore   and   Mysore,   ensure
smooth   and   safer   traffic   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore   and
provide a world class expressway between the two cities.   The
utility of the land that would be offered by the State for the
28
Project was clearly defined and prioritised.   The Project was to
consist   of   a   limited­access   toll   expressway;   electric   power
transmission   line;   water   pipeline;   and   fibre   optic
telecommunications cabling including construction of southern
section of the Bangalore City Outer Peripheral Road connecting
National Highway (NH)­7 and National Highway (NH)­4.   As a
limited­access expressway with a continuous barrier on either
side,   the   road   would   prevent   ribbon   development,   increase
efficiency of individual travel and cargo movement, and improve
vehicle safety.   Originally, seven “Township” areas in the entire
project   were   earmarked   and   clearly   identified,   but   after   due
consideration of all aspects, it was decided to reduce the number
of “Townships” to only five, identified as Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and
7 in the PTR.  The “possible business and services” of the Project
have been articulated in Schedule 4 of the FWA to include real
estate and housing as one of the activities. 
28. According to the appellants, the proposal submitted by the
Project   Proponents   was   for   development   of   group   housing
scheme.   That was not in accord with the usage of the land
specified in the FWA and the relevant specifications in the PTR.
29
The PTR as well as FWA recognise development of “Townships”
and not group housing scheme as such.  The two concepts are
materially different.   Further, the subject proposal to construct
group housing scheme was in area other than the identified five
Townships in the FWA and the PTR, which was not permissible in
terms of the FWA.  Besides, the proposal submitted by the Project
Proponents vide communication dated 5.5.2012 to develop group
housing scheme in the stated area also did not include other
components  required to be constructed and provided for in the
Townships.  Being a deviation of the FWA, it was essential for the
Project   Proponents   to   first   take   permission   of   the   State,   as
provided in the FWA, which could be granted on the basis of the
opinion  of the “Empowered Committee”.   Until grant  of such
permission, it was not open to the Project Proponents to maintain
any   application   or   submit   proposal   directly   to   the   Planning
Authority merely on the basis of the ODP/Master Plan and the
municipal laws concerning the town planning scheme under the
KTCP Act.  It is urged that the High Court posed wrong questions
to itself and proceeded to answer the same, that too in a manner
which   is   untenable   and   founded   on   erroneous   assumptions.
Despite the limited relief claimed by the Project Proponents, the
30
High Court went ahead with the issue of validity of the Cabinet
decision of the State in respect of the tripartite agreement.  That
was uncalled for.   Similarly, it proceeded to answer the issue
regarding  the  “single plot”   which  ought  to  have  been  left  for
consideration of the competent authority. 
29. In   substance,   the   argument   of   the   appellant   is   that   in
absence of prior permission of the State regarding deviation from
the FWA, it was not open to the Planning Authority to process the
application/proposal   under   consideration.     Nor   such   an
application   could   be   treated   as   a   valid   application   by   the
Planning Authority, for the purpose of Section 15 of the KTCP Act
regarding   deemed   permission.     It   is   urged   that   the   proposal
submitted by the Project Proponents, if accepted, would result in
allowing development on the toll road or at toll road interchanges,
which cannot be made part of the Townships in view of the
express provision in that regard in the FWA.  In case the Project
Proponents were not in agreement with the stipulations in the
FWA or the conditions specified by the competent authority of the
State,   they   could   resort   to   remedy   of   resolution   of   disputes
provided for in the FWA itself, before the Committee or by way of
31
arbitration, as the case may be.  However, the Project Proponents
could not have directly approached the Planning Authority for
grant   of   permission   and   the   High   Court   for   issue   of   writ   of
mandamus against the Planning Authority.  In other words, no
relief could be granted to the Project Proponents unless the State
had agreed to the deviation.  Significantly, the State had advised
the Planning Authority vide letter dated 19.12.2013 pointing out
that, before taking any decision with respect to change in land
use and approving residential complex, decision of Empowered
Committee constituted under the FWA be obtained.  It is urged
that   the   Project   Proponents   were   conscious   about   their
obligations.   That is manifest from the letter sent by NICE to
Executive   Member   of   the   Karnataka   Industrial   Development
Board21, dated 6.1.1998, including from the stand taken by them
before the High Court in different proceedings.  It is also urged
that the PTR and the FWA clearly provide for the sequence of
implementation and execution of the Project and it is open to the
State to insist for execution of Project strictly in that order.  The
Project   Proponents   cannot   be   allowed   to   disregard   these
obligations. 
21 For short, “the KIADB”
32
30. It is further urged that the logic invoked by the High Court
is, to say the least, unstatable.   Inasmuch as, merely because
“Housing” is mentioned in “Real Estate” column in Schedule 4, it
would not follow that the other components of the “Townships”
specified in the FWA and the PTR are dispensed with.   On the
other hand, the FWA, if read as a whole alongwith the relevant
stipulations in PTR referred to in FWA, it would be evident that
the Project ought to be implemented in the manner specified
therein   including   the   establishment   of   Townships.     Housing
scheme would only be one of the components of the “Townships”
to   be   constructed   at   the   designated   location   of   the   five
Townships.  That the lands on which development was proposed
were allotted to the Project Proponents for implementation of the
Project only as per the FWA with obligation to retransfer the
“Transferred Toll Road Assets” back to the State.  This has been
completely misinterpreted by the High Court.  Further, the High
Court was more impressed by the fact that in the earlier writ
petition filed by the Project Proponents, the Planning Authority
had agreed to consider the modified proposal dated 5.5.2012
submitted by the Project Proponents.  The assurance so given by
the   Planning   Authority   cannot   be   the   basis   to   disregard   the
33
binding obligations of the Project Proponents flowing from the
FWA regarding the manner in which the Project should be taken
forward. 
31. The appellants urge that the fact that permissions were
granted by the Planning Authority in respect of the neighbouring
lands   of   private   persons   for   construction   of   group   housing
complex or for that matter given to the Project Proponents in
respect of some other area, cannot be the basis to disregard the
obligations flowing from the FWA and the PTR.   The housing
scheme to be constructed by the Project Proponents must be in
the   designated   areas/location(s)   specified   as   “Townships”   and
only in the manner specified in the FWA and the PTR.  For, the
FWA refers to the PTR in some measure, and by such reference
the stipulations and specifications regarding the execution of the
Project given in the PTR would get incorporated in the FWA to
that extent.  The Project Proponents are obliged to adhere to all
such stipulations. 
32. Concededly, the right of the Project Proponents flows from
the FWA and is circumscribed by the same.  If proposed deviation
is to be ignored, the whole purpose for which the Project has
34
been conceived, will be defeated.  It would not be a development,
as planned in the PTR and approved in the FWA.  It is, therefore,
not open to the Project Proponents to rely on general provisions
applicable to other lands in the neighbourhood not covered by
the FWA.  It is urged that it is essential to keep in mind that the
private land is made available to the Project Proponents by the
State after acquiring it from land owners for implementation and
execution of the Project.  The regional or the zonal plan showing
the entire area as yellow zone being residential, would, therefore,
be of no avail to the Project Proponents.  The Project Proponents
cannot be heard to say that unless they are permitted to develop
group housing scheme, it would not  be  possible  for  them to
finance the Project, inasmuch as, the manner of financing the
Project and generation of revenue is already specified in the FWA.
It   is   urged   that   in   any   case,   the   High   Court   exceeded   its
jurisdiction in issuing mandamus against the Planning Authority,
directing to issue Commencement Certificate, as sought by the
Project Proponents vide modified proposal dated 5.5.2012.
33. The Project Proponents, on the other hand, would reiterate
the stand taken by them before the High Court and which had
35
found   favour   with   the  High   Court.     According   to   the   Project
Proponents, the High Court in the facts of the present case, was
justified in not only quashing the communication issued by the
Planning   Authority,   dated   7.2.2015,   but   also   directing   the
Planning   Authority   to   issue   Commencement   Certificate,   as
prayed   in   terms   of   the   modified   proposal   dated   5.5.2012.
According to them, the State authorities including the Planning
Authority   have   been   obstructing   the   implementation   of   the
Project, which has been approved long back and elucidated in the
FWA dated 3.4.1997.   The group housing scheme is one of the
activities clearly permitted by the FWA.  And being a permissible
activity,   it   was   unnecessary   for   the   Project   Proponents   to
approach the State or the Empowered Committee, as the case
may be.  As a matter of fact, the Empowered Committee is not a
statutory Committee.   It is only a facilitation Committee under
the FWA to ensure smooth implementation of the Project.  In any
case,   the   four   grounds   articulated   in   the   impugned
communication dated 7.2.2015 issued by the Planning Authority,
make no reference to the requirement of obtaining prior approval
36
from the State or the Empowered Committee.  The State cannot
be heard to raise any objection in that regard in the present
proceedings,   as   it   did   not   raise   the   same   in   the   earlier   writ
petition filed by the Project Proponents bearing Writ Petition Nos.
57249­57250/2013   (GM­RES)   and   57266­57267/2013   (GMRES), to which it was made party.  In fact, an order was passed
on the basis of the assurance given by the Planning Authority
that it would consider the modified proposal submitted by the
Project Proponents on 5.5.2012 within specified time.  According
to   the   Project   Proponents,   the   reasons   recorded   by   the   High
Court are in the context of the arguments canvassed before it and
invited by the parties.
34. It is urged that the entire action of the Planning Authority
and the stand taken by the State is replete with mala fides.  This
Court   even   on   the   earlier   occasion,   had   taken   notice   of   the
obstructions   created   by   the   State   authorities   in   the
implementation   of   the   Project,   as   can   be   discerned   from   the
observations in All India Manufacturers Organisation (supra).
It is urged that the Project Proponents were not invoking the
37
deeming   provision,   but   have   pursued   grounds   to   assail   the
reasons   stated   by   the   Planning   Authority   in   the   impugned
communication dated 7.2.2015.   The High Court dealt with all
the   four   grounds   noted   by   the   Planning   Authority   in   the
impugned communication and justly concluded that the same
were   unsustainable.     Having   said   that,   the   High   Court   was
justified in issuing direction to the Planning Authority for grant of
Commencement Certificate, as it was satisfied that no fruitful
purpose   would   have   been   served   by   relegating   the   Project
Proponents before the same (Planning) Authority.   For, it was
determined to create obstruction in the implementation of the
Project.   It is urged that the Planning Authority having issued
ODP/Master Plan, was obliged to process the modified proposal
submitted by the Project Proponents on that basis.  The land use
categorised in ODP/Master Plan refers to outer peripheral road
including the land reserved for interchanges.   The High Court
had considered this aspect and accepted the stand of the Project
Proponents that it is clear from perusal of the ODP/Master Plan
that   the   land   in   question   can   be   used   for   various   purposes
including   residential,   commercial,   industrial   developments,
which would be in consonance with clause 3.2.3 of the FWA.  It is
38
urged that the Project Proponents had agreed to undertake and
carry   on   the   construction   of   group   housing   scheme   in   strict
compliance of the ODP/Master Plan.  The Project Proponents are
also relying on the argument of the Advocate General of the State
of Karnataka, reproduced in paragraph 41 of the judgment of the
High   Court   in   Writ  Petition   No.  3438/2010  dated   15.6.2011,
wherein it was pleaded on behalf of the State that the PTR was
only a proposal and the ODP­2004 was the approved alignment
of the road.   It is urged that the State having approved the
ODP/Master Plan, was bound to give effect thereto and cannot be
allowed to approbate and reprobate relying on the PTR/FWA.  It
is   contended   that   this   Court   in  All   India   Manufacturers
Organisation (supra) had negatived the submission of the State
that 5119.37 acres of land was required for the toll road in the
PTR, however, in the FWA, the area was enhanced to 6999 acres.
It is urged that the PTR is not a sacrosanct document and the
parties accepted various modifications to the same.   It is also
urged that the State cannot be permitted to raise the same plea,
which would be otherwise hit by principles of constructive  res
judicata.     According   to   the   Project   Proponents,   the   issue
39
regarding the development of land reserved for “Townships” has
attained finality and cannot be raised again in light of the dictum
in  All   India   Manufacturers   Organisation  (supra)   including
dismissal of review petition raising the same ground now urged
by the State.  Further, there is no infirmity in the view taken by
the High Court, much less regarding the direction issued vide the
impugned judgment.
35. We have heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
for the appellant­Planning Authority, Mr. Chandra Uday Singh,
learned senior counsel for the State and Dr. Abhishek Manu
Singhvi and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the
Project Proponents.
36. Considering the rival submissions, we are inclined to accept
the argument of the appellants that the High Court in paragraph
9 of the impugned judgment (reproduced in paragraph 22 of this
judgment), posed wrong questions to itself and that led to the
erroneous   and   untenable   conclusion   deduced   by   it.     The
fundamental   issue   is:   whether   the   subject   modified   plan
submitted   by  the   Project   Proponents   directly   to   the   Planning
Authority for approval is replete with deviations and/or violation
40
of the stipulations and specifications in the FWA?   In that, the
FWA had circumscribed the user of the land in terms of the
location(s), as well as, the area thereof for implementation of the
Project.  If so, was it imperative for the Project Proponents under
the FWA to obtain prior approval of the State including that of
the Empowered Committee? And if that was declined or granted
in part, should they take recourse to remedy of resolution of
disputes or through arbitration mechanism, as provided in the
FWA itself?  If all these questions were to be answered in favour
of the Project Proponents, only then the Court could be called
upon to examine the justness of the four reasons recorded by the
Planning Authority.  The High Court, in our opinion, hastened to
examine   the   justness   of   the   reasons   given   by   the   Planning
Authority   for   rejecting   the   proposal,   vide   the   impugned
communication dated 7.2.2015.
37. For answering the matters in issue in proper perspective, it
would   be   essential   to   first   understand   the   purpose   of   the
Integrated   Infrastructure   Corridor   and   Finance   Project   (the
Project).  It was conceived and formalised to construct a privately
financed   infrastructure   corridor   and   seven   new   Townships
41
between Bangalore city and Mysore city in Karnataka State.  The
Project also included construction of the southern section of the
Bangalore   City   Outer   Peripheral   Road.     The   infrastructure
corridor was to include a modern, four­lane (extendable to sixlane)   limited   access   expressway;   potable   water,   sewage
treatment, and electric power transmission facilities; and fibre
optic communication cables.  The southern section of the Outer
Peripheral Road was to link the infrastructure corridor with the
region’s entire highway network.   The report (PTR) plainly sets
out   that   the   seven   new   Townships   were   to   be   organic,   selfsufficient communities, each with its own unique economic base
and directly served by the infrastructure corridor.  All this would
fulfil   the   National   and   State   policy   goals   for   population
dispersion,   infrastructure   modernisation   and   economic
development,   and   inevitably,   economic   and   infrastructure
privatisation.  As a limited­access expressway with a continuous
barrier on either side, the road was intended to prevent ribbon
development, increase efficiency of individual travel and cargo
movement, and improve vehicle safety.  It also notes that it was
intended to provide access to existing and proposed Townships,
for which nine (9) interchanges were to be constructed along the
42
length of the expressway.  Location(s) of the interchanges, as well
as, the “Townships” area were clearly demarcated in the PTR.
The relevant extract from the PTR reads thus: ­
“1. The intersection of the expressway with the outer
peripheral road
2. The Corporate Counter (Township Site #1)
3. The   Commercial   Center   (Township   Site   #2)
and Bidadi
4. The Farming Market Center (Township Site #3),
the   Industrial   Center   (Township   Site   #4),   the
Heritage Center (Township Site #5), Ramanagaram
and Channapatna
5. Maddur
6. Mandya
7. The Agricultural Center (Township Site #6) and
Arakere
8. The   Eco­Tourism   Center   (Township   Site   #7)
and Shrirangapatta
9. The   intersection   of   the   Expressway   with   the
Mysore Ring Road
The expressway will bypass congested village roadways,
eliminating conflict between inter­city and local traffic. By
limiting access to the expressway and charging tolls, local
traffic will be discouraged from using the corridor. As a
result,  the   corridor  will  significantly  reduce  travel   time
between Bangalore and Mysore to about one and one­half
hours. The design of the expressway will, to the greatest
extent possible, maintain the travel patterns of the rural
populace. For the most part, local cross roads, although
separate from the expressway, will be maintained through
the construction of bridges and culverts. Where crossing
the expressway with a local roadway or cattle path is not
feasible,   local   access   roads   will   connect   to   nearby
roadways   that   do   cross   the   corridor.   Bridges   and
43
underpasses for local roads, and most of the large culverts
will serve as cattle crossings during the dry season.
The expressway and its facilities will be constructed of the
best   materials   and   implemented   using   state­of­the­art
highway   engineering   and   construction   techniques.   The
expressway   will   be   constructed   to   high   standards   of
roadway safety with two marked lanes in each direction
and divided by a wide landscaped median. The roadway
alignment   and   pavement   surface   will   be   designed   to
ensure   safe   travel   and   a   smooth   ride.   To   achieve   this
objective, the expressway will be designed using innovative
materials and construction techniques such as jointless
cement   concrete   pavement.   All   bridges   will   be   but   of
modern materials. The roadway surface will be graded to
prevent   water   pooling   and   curves   will   be   banked   to
enhance driving safety.”
(emphasis supplied)
The map of the concerned area clearly specified the location(s) of
the interchanges and the Townships, forming part of the PTR.  As
regards the Townships development, the relevant portion of the
PTR reads thus: ­
“TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
The Consortium proposes to design, acquire land for, and
construct seven new townships as part of the BangaloreMysore Infrastructure Corridor.  The  townships  will  be
developed entirely by the Consortium, including the
provision   of   infrastructure   municipal   services,   and
recreation   facilities.   The   creation   of   the   new
townships   will   provide   significant   benefits   to
Bangalore, Mysore, the investment corridor, and the
entire   state   of  Karnataka.   The   townships   are   being
planned   to   be   compatible   with   their   environments.
They will strengthen the rural agricultural economies
of the area and maintain the stability of existing rural
settlements.
Each of the proposed townships has a unique identity
determined   by   its   economic   base.   The   urban   form,
44
transportation network, and municipal services serve and
are   guided   by   the   basic   purpose   and   theme   of   the
community. The proposed townships are as follows:
Corporate   Center:   A   home   for   corporate
headquarters,   offices   and   research   and
development facilities.
Industrial   Center:   A   self­sufficient
community   dedicated   to   clear
manufacturing   and   industrial   research   and
development.
Agricultural   Center:   A   town   centered   on   a
university   and   institute   dedicated   to
agricultural research and its application.
Eco­tourism  Center: An  environmental park
and cultural arts center which will become a
destination for Indians and foreign travellers
who   wish   to   learn   about   the   region’s
environmental   resources,   fine   and
performing arts, and heritage crafts.
Heritage   Center:   A   pilgrimage   site   with
conference and traditional healing facilities.
Commercial  Center:  A  residential   suburb  of
Bangalore   with   retail,   light   industry,   and
municipal support services.
Farming   and   Market   Center:   A   farming
community with a market center for the sale of
locally grown produce.
Beyond these themes, the communities share a common
planning philosophy. The towns must be modern, but
accommodate traditional Karnataka lifestyles, customs,
and   cultural  values.   Transportation   access   and   utility
infrastructure   will   be   provided   to   a   greater   ultimate
development   capacity   than  will   be   initially   needed   for
those areas to be created by the Consortium. This excess
capacity   will   permit   the   new   townships   to
accommodate future growth with minimal disruption.
45
Each   township   has   a   primary   town   center   with
supporting   neighbourhood   centers.   The   residential
areas   are   planned   to   include   a   range   of   housing
models and are situated so that the walking distances
to work, school, or shopping are not greater than ½
mile (0.9 km). Elementary schools are located in each
neighbourhood.   Parks   and   recreation   facilities   are
generously   allocated   to   neighborhoods   and   town
centers. Transportation access to the expressway and
internal   vehicle   and   pedestrian   circulation   patterns
are considered carefully. …”
(emphasis supplied)
The other crucial aspect predicated in the PTR is the manner in
which   the   Project   needs   to   be   implemented   and   prioritized
including the Townships.  It reads thus: ­
PROJECT SCHEDULING AND PHASING:
The   current   project   schedule   and   phasing   plan   is
responsive to the financial plan of the Consortium, and it
meets   the   transportation   and   township   development
needs of the region. A master schedule illustrating the
Bangalore­Mysore   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project
elements and their interrelationships is presented on the
following page.
  The   project   schedule   and   phasing   plan   has   been
developed   that   sequentially   constructs   the   expressway
elements   of   the   project.  Township   development   is
phased to financially support the construction of the
Expressway   and   the   southern   section   of   the   Outer
Peripheral   Road.   The   project   phasing   can   be
summarised as follows:
Construction   of   the   Southern   section   of   the
Outer peripheral Road around Bangalore City
between years 1­3.
Construction   of   the   Bangalore   link   Road
between years 1­3
46
Construction   of   the   northern   section   of   the
Expressway (0­55 km) between years 2­4.
Construction   of   the   southern   section   of   the
Expressway and the Mysore Link Road between
years 4­6.
Construction   of   the   Bangalore   City   Elevated
Link Road Extension between years 7­10.
Construction of the townships would begin in
year 2 and extend over a period of 12­15 years.
Development in each of the townships would
be  concurrent  with  the  construction  of  the
community and municipal services. This will
enable   the   financing   of   these   township
elements   and   allow   the   consortium   to
manage their cash flow.
Once construction of the various expressway elements
has   been   completed,   tolled   traffic   operations   will
commence.   For   example,   it   is   envisioned   that   the
Southern   section   of   the   Outer   Peripheral   Road   would
open for traffic operations at the end of year three. Upon
completion   of   each   subsequent   expressway   section,   it
would also be opened for traffic operation.”
(emphasis supplied)
38. Section I of the report (PTR) deals with topics such as SocioEconomic   Profile,   Highway   Planning   Issues,   Recommended
Scheme, Traffic Data and Analysis, Engineering Design, Bridges,
Initial Environmental Examination, Cost Estimate, Privatisation
of Highway Projects, Appendix­I and Appendix­II.   Under topic
“Recommended   Scheme”,   the   details   of   the   Expressway,
Underpasses/Overpasses,   Cattle   Underpasses,   Utilities   Road,
Interchanges, Service Areas, Toll Plazas, Central Administrative
47
Complex, Express Lighting, City Centre Access etc. have been
duly elaborated including their exact location and other essential
specifications. 
39. The   topic   “Townships   Along   the   Corridor”   has   been
separately detailed in Section­II.  The relevant portion of the PTR
dealing with “Townships” reads thus: ­
“1. TOWNSHIPS ALONG THE CORRIDOR
This   part   of   the   report   deals   with   the   analysis   of
developing   seven   urban   townships   with   all
infrastructure and civic facilities along the BangaloreMysore expressway.
Historically,   the   chieftain   from   Magadi,   Kempegowda
built Bangalore during 1597 and established a few towers
on   the   boundary   limits   of   Bangalore.   The   Mughals
conquered it in 1687. It is said, it was sold to Chikka
Devaraya in 1690 for Rupees three lakhs. It was Hyder
Ali who got it as a personal jagir in 1759. However in
1791, Tippu Sultan was given suzerainty over it after the
Treaty   of   Srirangapatnam.   After   the   fall   of   Tippu   at
Srirangapatnam, the same was returned to the Hindu
Royalty in 1799. A military cantonment of the British was
established in 1809 and Bangalore later on flourished as
an   administrative   centre   since   1830.   It   grew
spectacularly after 1951.
1.3. The   population   of   Bangalore   was   12   lakhs
during 1961 and it rose to 29 lakhs as per 1981 census.
In   1981,   it   was   the   fifth   most   populated   city   in   the
country and accounted for 25% of the population of the
state – Hubli­Dharwad, the next urban centre accounting
for a fifth of Bangalore size population.
1.4. Compared to Karnataka’s growth in population
during   1981­91   which   was   20.09%,   the   growth   of
population of Bangalore urban area was 59.08% during
1971­81   and   38.00%   in   1981­91   and   that   of   rural
48
Bangalore was 24.30% during 1971­81 and 14.70% in
1981­91.
1.5. As against this, Mysore with a population of 6.52
lakhs in 1991 recorded a growth of 24.97% in 1971­81
and   21.58%   in   1981­91   at   the   district   level.   Various
agencies estimated the expected population of Bangalore
during 2001 as 70 lakhs (Town Planning Department)
and 82 lakhs (anticipated by Bangalore Water supply and
sewage   Board).   The   Comprehensive   Development   Plan
(CDP) 1984 for 2001 of Bangalore Development Authority
(BDA) projected a population of 70.00 lakhs for Bangalore
in 2001. The revised (1995) CDP for 2011 AD proposed
land uses for 56,465 hac. as against 43,928 hac. During
2001. This is in addition to the green belt, surrounding
the conurbation area.
1.6. The rapid increase in population necessitated
a   thinking   process   to   contain   Bangalore   to   a
reasonable   size,   assure   it   the   desired   level   of   civic
and   social   services   to   keep   its   premier   status   and
direct   additional   growth   to   alternate   places   in   a
desirable  manner.   The   acute  problems   of   Bangalore
are   increasing   level   of   pollution,   pressure   on   land,
acute shortage of water, inadequate sewaging system
and   lack   of   proper   sewage   treatment   and   disposal
arrangements,   shortage   of   power,   shortage   of
residential   accommodation,   inefficient
telecommunication   system,   paucity   of   land   space
within green belt etc.
1.7. Bangalore, located at an elevation of +900m is
suffering for want of a good transport system, inter and
intracity wise. A reliable power supply system to assure
1000mw   was   planned   as   a   part   of   Karnataka   power
requirement.   Tourist   and   amusement   areas   like   T.G.
Halli Reservoir, Hesarghatta Tank, Bannerghata National
Park and Ramohalli Banyan Tree and Kanva Reservoir
were considered, but no active steps taken. The region
lacks   the   facility   of   good   environment   parks   or
amusement places.
The above and many other factors indicate that there
is   a   need   for   a   policy   to   establish   urban   growth
centers,   with   dependable   infrastructure   and
accessibility   to   the   metropolitan   area   along   a   fast
49
corridor.   Examples   of   this   nature   are   many   in
Switzerland, Norway, Mourville away from Paris in France
are   just   a   few   instances   of   polycentred   settlements
working as countermagnets, with a strong support base.
The  townships along the proposed Bangalore Mysore
Expressway would go a long way in reducing pressure
on   Bangalore.   These   settlements   should,   however,
take   into   account   the   growth   pressure   likely   to   be
faced   by   them   after   a   decade   of   their   completion.
Creation   of   new   settlements   is   likely   to   bring   in
better   results   compared   to   improvements   and
modification   or   creating   new   urban   extensions   to
metropolitan   Bangalore   as   these   actions   need   to
necessarily   serve   under   severe   constraints   on   the
other facilities like land, transport and power. Usewise
for any unit of expenditure, the efficacy of modifications
will be comparatively less. The environment and purity
will only reduce. But in the case of new settlements, it
will be easier to achieve better results. It is, however,
necessary   to   ensure   that   the   existing   structures   and
balances   in   the   rural   sector   are   not   thoughtlessly
disturbed; the emphasis in the new townships should
be for achieving a high degree of green and low rise
and low density development.
A very important aspect is to give orientation towards
the  direction   in  which  new   townships   should   grow.
Referring to Bangalore, good transport facilities towards
Mysore   are   in   the   offing   which   is   a   good   boost   for
industrial   and   tourism   growth.   Mysore   having   an
excellent source of shelter, tourism, industry, and raw
materials,   will   serve   very   well   the   purpose   of   an
important supporting city (as the other end of a corridor
of   development   with   other   facilities   and   settlements
dispersed   judiciously   in   between).   Secondly,   there   are
three medium irrigation projects near about Bangalore
viz the Manchanabale Project, the lggalur project and the
Arobele   project,   which   can   yield   some   water   for
supporting   the   growth.   Rivers   Arakavati   Shimsa   and
Cauveri are on the corridor towards Mysore. The Ground
Water department ascertained that there is good ground
water development possibility for making about 33,000
additional well structures in Bangalore; 41,600 in Mysore
and 42,100 in Mandya. At least it indicates good ground
water condition at depths ranging 50m and more. By far
the climatic and physical conditions in this area are very
50
congenial, compared to some other areas in Karnataka.
Therefore, it is most desirable to develop the belt as a
corridor with settlements of high order of infrastructure
well   connected   to   the   two   metropolitan   towns   of
Bangalore and Mysore.
Selection of Townships
1.10 Estimates   indicate   that   the   population   of
Bangalore   will   reach   85   lakhs   by   2011.   There   is   an
absolute need to restrict the population to 70 lakhs by
2011.   Even   for   achieving   this   objective,   a   number   of
measures to prepare Bangalore for sustaining a holding
capacity of 70 lakhs will be required to be taken. The
proposal now is an effort to absorb almost 7 to  8 lakhs
population in the proposed corridor by developing seven
townships   (Mandya,   Maddur,   Ramanagram   and
Chanpatna shall be geared to absorb about 2.0 lakhs
additional population). The balance of 6 lakh population
has to be diverted across towards other countermagnets
and some administrative actions taken.
1.10.2. The selection of the seven townships and the
need for land has been done by physical examination
of   the   present   ground   level   conditions   and
development. Since an expressway is being considered,
a   comprehensive   view   has   been   taken   about   the
availability of access to the corridor from the proposed
townships each of which will be given an access to the
expressway.
1.10.3.   Availability   of   water   is   an   important
consideration. There are no water sources of perennial
nature, barring Cauveri which can be tapped for water
supply to these townships. Ground water conditions do
indicate   the   presence   of   water   at   depths   40   to   50m
between the rocks, but this is not an adequate source to
sustain the nature and level of development. Even the
National Water Policy hints that drinking water for urban
areas shall be met from surface flows, and only in rural
areas,   extensive   dependence   on   tube   wells   may   be
considered.   Heavy   exploitation   of   subsoil   water   can
reduce the growth of greens. The idea of bringing water
from Cauveri along the expressway and supplying to the
townships is the only solution. Some water to be tapped
trough tube wells and water ponding by digging lakes can
be only auxiliary measures.
51
1.10.4. Efforts are being made to avoid acquisition of
lands   which   are   under   good   cultivation.   Such   lands
which are good for agriculture and gardens are being
almost avoided. Forest land is also being avoided. Since it
is necessary to have one expanse of land of about 2,000
acres and more for about 1.0 lakh population (or more),
search   was   made   for   presence   of   continuous   plots   of
land,   as   far   as   possible,   forming   a   regular   geometric
figure without wedges projecting in or out. However in a
few cases, a few villages and major district roads exist on
ground in the midst of such expansive areas. In such
cases, the villages and road are to be integrated suitably
with other planning, and some measures will have to be
taken to integrate them with main area. This will be a
right step to encourage the rural settlements adopting
new norms of a system and not distort, or feel disparities.
1.11. The area on the corridor towards Maddur and
Mandya are highly agricultural in character with existing
irrigation   facilities.  It   is   for   this   reason   that   more
townships are located in the first half of the corridor
nearer  to  Bangalore  and  only  2  out  of  seven   in  the
other half of corridor nearer Mysore.
Fig.   3.1  (Section­I)   shows   the   location   of   the
townships   and   the   areas   and   the   location   of
expressway. Where the township area is away from the
expressway, a dedicated road with good specification is
proposed to be constructed up to the expressway as a
part of the township development. They will be served
through the Expressway interchanges.
To avoid speculation, no survey of land has been done.
Help   of   Topo   maps   has   been   taken   to   know   ground
conditions. Ground conditions are further examined by
limited walking along. There are some changes on ground
since the last survey work was done for preparing topo
maps.  Land   use  maps   of   each   township   have   been
prepared to indicate the suggested breakup of areas.
After  the   land   is   finally   selected  and  ground  survey
done to some extent of precision  (the existing maps
are  to  a  scale  of  1:50,000),  the  land  uses  firmed up
and  density   can  be   finally  decided  with  zoning   and
other development components like FAR, Height, Set
Backs, Architectural Control etc.
52
1.14. The present comprehensive development plan for
Bangalore   shows   the   following   land   use   pattern.   In
addition, there is a green belt on the periphery
Residential 43.16%
Commercial      2.91%
Industrial       6.81%
Public and Open Spaces 13.79%
Public and semi public   8.69%
Transportation 20.72%
Unclassified   3.92%
100.00%
1.15. Some   townships   are   exclusively  designed   to
promote   industry   and   one   for   Environment   and
amusement.   The   land   use   pattern   at   city   level   in
Bangalore cannot be extended for townships outside.
The land use pattern in the other township areas will
generally be as below.
Housing        30­50%
Parks, open spaces               15­20%   (excl.   Agr.
University)
Commercial 5­10%
Industrial 0­20%
Roads and Utilities    20%
Municipal & Institutional 5­15%
Total    100%
Subsequent   chapters   describe   the   concept   of
township   layouts   infrastructural   services   and   the
manner in which they will be designed and provided.”
(emphasis supplied)
The Conceptual Aspects of Townships are separately discussed
as second item in Section­II, which reads thus: ­
“2. CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS OF TOWNSHIPS
2.1 Problems of the urban community multiply with
the   increasing   complexity   of   our   age.   The   physical
53
expansion of cities is running out of control, and the
economic   and   social   consequences   command   the
attention of civic leadership in Government, business and
industry. The Practical limitation of the pyramidal form of
the city has forced decentralization. When the congestion
at the core becomes unbearable, the inner layers slip out.
The present exercise is to contain this phenomenon by
planning the infrastructural corridor having seven new
townships to cater to the varying and complex needs of
the   region,   along  the   proposed   expressway  connecting
Bangalore and Mysore. These are indicated on the index
map.
The new townships would be of relatively small sizes,
designed   to   encourage   pedestrians   circulation   and
maintain close proximity to surrounding open space.
The   plans   indicate   an   abundance   of   space   flowing
throughout the community. The special endeavour has
been made to preserve natural wooded areas or unusual
topographical   characteristics   in   all   the   towns.   The
existing villages are assimilated in the overall schemes of
development as they are existing on all sites. The human
scale predominates in the total planning of all the new
town   ships   which   are   planned   as   self­contained
communities   seeking   a   balance   between   sources   of
employment,   business   centres,   centre   for   fashion
technology, medical and other research centres etc. are
suitably   located   in   various   townships   which   are
essentially organic elements in a  broad programme  of
decentralization   of   the   congested   urban   centres   of
Bangalore and Mysore.
In   all   townships,   the   floor­space   required   to   be
occupied by people and ground space for circulation
has been carefully worked out. The emerging pattern
is   a  balance  between   these   elements.   The  high  rise
‘Land   Mark’   buildings,   for   all   towns   have   been
thought of  essentially  in  the  commercial sectors,  to
dominate  the   skyline   and  also   to  be   seen   from  the
Expressway.
The grid pattern is followed for roads with circles and
radials in some cases. Three types of principal rights of
way have been followed, the respective width being 33.0,
24.5 m and 18.00 m.
54
Each neighbourhood in the new townships has a small
sub centre for shopping, a primary school, and social
facilities.   The   secondary   schools   serve   several
neighbourhoods.
Fig.   3.1   indicates   the   general   locations   of   the
townships   along   the   proposed   Expressway   and
existing  Bangalore­Mysore  State  Highway  No.17. The
existing   villages   and   towns   are   also   indicated.   The
distance   in   km   is   shown   on   the   drawing   along   the
alignment   of   proposed   Expressway.   There   are   five
townships with in the distance of 40 kms from Bangalore
and two townships in the vicinity of Mysore on either side
of the Kaveri River.
Township   No.1  assumes   great  significance   due   to   its
proximity to Bangalore. It is situated on either side of the
Expressway on the fringes of the Outer Ring Road of
Bangalore   city.   The   nature   of   this   township   may   be
roughly   identified   as   a   corporate   township   providing
facilities for Research and Development, Business Centre,
Hotels,   Golf   Course,   Residential,   and   related
infrastructure. Some facilities from the core of the city
could   be   shifted   here   in   a   planned   and   organised
manner.
The entrance  and  exit  to  the  township is through  an
interchange and toll­booths. This is located on the west of
the town. The town is provided with a Green Belt on its
periphery.   Due   consideration   has   been   given   to   the
ecological and environmental factors. The total area of
the township is 2792 acres.
The ‘Land Mark’ buildings are proposed at appropriate
locations.
The city is designed as a self­contained entity with all
facilities,   including   a   hospital   and   a   college   with
appropriate number of primary schools, high schools and
other town requirements.
2.8 Township  No.  2  is located about 10 kms from
the   Bangalore   conurbation   boundary.   The   site   is
proposed   to   be   developed   as   a   commercial   township,
contributing to relieve the pressures of urbanization.
55
Covering an area of 1868 acres, the township is situated
about 7­8 kms off the Bangalore­Mysore Expressway and
4 kms from the existing railway line and state highway
No.17 to the south of the township.
The   existing   site   features   are   more   or   less   suitably
modified according to the layout with an exception of a
few rirulets, natural water bodies and hillocks and rocky
outcrops   scattered   within   the   site   boundary.   The
proposed township site is bounded by two roads leading
to Bangalore from Nejjala and Bidadi towns. A number of
existing   settlements   are   present   all   around   the   site
boundary   especially   towards   the   south   while   two
settlements fall within the site boundary.
The basic design of this township revolves around the
central core. This central core is the major commercial,
business, services and institutional hub of the town. The
residential   area   is   distributed   all   around   this   central
core.
The multifunctional central core offers varied services,
right from a commercial complex to hotel, bus terminal
municipal offices, institutional and office use, hospital,
and college, all located within 2 kms from the farthest
point   in   the   township   and   hence   confirms   to   the
standards   of   human   scale,   facilitating   use   of   non
motorised form of transport.
The road layout is more or less a grid pattern. Each
residential pocket is to be developed as a self­contained
neighbourhood   with   facilities   like   school,   playground,
park, dispensary, convenient shopping etc.
The environmentally friendly nature of the township is
emphasized   by   developing   the   township   for   nonmotorised transport system, encompassing the existing
settlements within the overall structure of the township
and   provision   of   a   green   buffer   all   along   the   site
boundary besides the provision of community parks and
trees lining the major roads of the township.
Last   but   not   the   least   is   the   link   to   the   proposed
Expressway   which   will   be   provided   through   an
interchange on the expressway.
2.9 Township No. 3   xxx xxx xxx
56
2.10. Town  ship  No.  4  is about 36­37 kms. west of
Bangalore along the proposed Expressway. The site has
an   area   of   about   1660   acres   and   is   meant   for   the
industrial   land   use.   It   is   intended   to   accommodate
different types of plots for the various industries. A green
buffer   is   maintained   all   round   the   township   and   the
environmental considerations shall be well looked after.
The   site   has   an   approach   from   the   Expressway.   The
necessary   provision   has   also   been   maintained   for   the
public and semi­public and the green areas. The town
shall be designed on the lines of a modern Industrial
township will all necessary trapping.
2.11. Township No. 5 is north of township no.4. This
township is located near the existing Bangalore­Mysore
State Highway No.17 and also near the existing Railway
line.
The site of this township in on the north of the existing
village   of   Archahakra   Halli,   which   is   along   the   State
Highway No.17 from where an existing roadway leads to
the   hinterlands.   This   road   passes   through   the   entire
length of the proposed township. This proposed township
has a mix of cultural and residential land use and it
occupies an area of about 2700 acres. The town shall
have a medical centre with a full­fledged hospital with
centres for the study of various types of medical systems
like Allopathy, Ayurveda etc. it will also have a centre for
religious studies with subcentres for all world religion
and   will   accommodate   special   centre   for   the   Vedic
studies. Housing also forms the major component of this
township.
Township No. 6   xxx xxx xxx
Township  No.  7  is in the near vicinity of Mysore City,
about 3 km on its outskirts and about 1 km on the north
of Kaveri River. It occupies an area of 4010 acres. The
township   is   designed   for   Ecotourism   and   all   facilities
have been provided to meet this target.
This   is   the   township   of   contrasts.   It   will   have   an
Amusement   Park,   Golf   Course   and   hotels   with   some
residential   neighbourhoods.   A   town   centre   with
commercial,   public   buildings   and   other   necessary
infrastructure facilities is provided.
57
All   these   townships   together   provide   for   necessary
infrastructure   support   required   in   this   region   for
perspective requirements.
The townships will be developed in line with modern town
planning   practices.   Special   consideration   should   be
shown   while   detailing   open   spaces   parks   and   greens.
Special attention is to be given to Agricultural Zone and
the Agriculture University where uses like agriculture,
horticulture farming, chilling centers, farm houses and
accessory buildings will be planned.
Since   the   detailed   layout   and   architectural   control   &
drafting zoning applicable norms is not within the scope
of this report, this is not attempted; also it is an exclusive
work, which has to be handled separately. However there
are   certain   points   which   have   links   with   land   use
planning   and   which   need   to   be   considered   in
development planning. They are listed below.
1. Road hierarchy has to be planned to avoid main
traffic in a subcity going through residential areas.
2. Wind Rose is to be kept in view while treating high
rise buildings vs. low rise buildings.
3. Continuous   green   may   be   attempted   to   allow
minimum   public   use   of   motorised   transport   –
encourage cycle or pedestrian movement.
4. All high rise buildings to be on wide roads only.
5. Drainage and greens to be integrated
6. Low   rise   buildings   to   be   attempted   to   harmonize
with environment
7. Energy   savings   should   be   an   important   criterion
while detailing architectural plans.
8. Local zoning to ensure a low noise environment for
schools, hospitals, and residences.”
(emphasis supplied)
58
40. The   project   report   (PTR)   was   deliberated   and   eventually
translated   into   a   formal   decision   of   the   State   with   some
modifications   and   changes   to   the   recommendations   made
therein.  Finally, the Framework Agreement (FWA) was executed
between the State and NICE.  Even this agreement at the outset ­
in   the   recitals,   unambiguously   refers   to   the   PTR   and   the
necessity to implement the Project as finally approved by the
Government in larger public interest.  The relevant recitals read
thus: ­
“W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS,   Bangalore   and   Mysore   are   the   fastest
developing   cities   in   the   State   of   Karnataka   and   are
leading   centres   for   industry,   trade   and   commerce,
simultaneously attracting tourists from all over the world;
WHEREAS, the traffic intensity between Bangalore and
Mysore has been very high and will continue to increase
with further growth of industry, trade, commerce and
tourism in such cities and in the State of Karnataka;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure smooth and accidentfree traffic between Bangalore and Mysore, an expressway
between the two cities is proposed;
WHEREAS,   in   light   of   the   ever­increasing
urbanisation problems and in an effort to achieve the
orderly   development   of   Bangalore   as   a   major
industrial commercial and residential city.  GOK has
proposed   to  promote   an   integrated   infrastructure
corridor  situated   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore,
Karnataka,   consisting   of   residential,   industrial   and
commercial facilities such as among other things, selfsustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and
amenities,   including   power   plants,   industrial   plants,
water   treatment   plants   and   other   infrastructural
59
developments,  as   more   specifically   described   in   the
Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   Technical   Report,
dated   August   1995,   as   amended  (collectively,   the
“Infrastructure Corridor”);
WHEREAS, GOK has been consistently attempting to
attract on agreeable terms a consortium to industrially
and commercially develop the Infrastructure Corridor in
accordance with the vision of GOK;
WHEREAS, the Kalyani Group, SAB Engineering and
Construction   Inc.,   and   Vanasse   Hangen   Brustlin   Inc.
(collectively, the “Consortium”) and GOK entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding dated 20 February, 1995
relating to the further consideration of the industrial and
commercial development of the Infrastructure Corridor by
the Consortium (the “Memorandum of Understanding”);
WHEREAS,   GOK,   upon   review,   assessment   and
consideration   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project
Technical Report dated August – 1995 prepared by the
Consortium,   as   amended   by   the   Government   Order
(defined   below)   and   the   Annexure   thereto   (the
“Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   Technical   Report”)   is
satisfied   that   the   interests   of   the   State   of   Karnataka
would be  best  served if  the  Infrastructure  Corridor  is
industrially and commercially developed as contemplated
by the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report
inasmuch   as   such   development   would   promote
industrial, commercial and economic growth in the State
of Karnataka generally and in Bangalore and Mysore and
the   Infrastructure   Corridor   specifically   create   new   job
opportunities   for   the   residents   in   and   around   the
Infrastructure   Corridor,   promote   tourism,   decongest
traffic in Bangalore and Mysore, ensure smooth and safer
traffic   between   Bangalore   and   Mysore   and   provide   a
world­class expressway between the two cities;
WHEREAS, GOK issued Order No. PWD 32 CSR 95
dated   20   November   1995   (the   “Government   Order”)
authorizing   the   development   of   the   Infrastructure
Corridor   by   the   Consortium   as   contemplated   by   the
Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report;
WHEREAS, GOK has consented to and acknowledged
the exercise by the Company of the Consortium’s rights
under   the   Memorandum   of   Understanding   and   the
Government   Order   pursuant   to   a   Consent   and
Acknowledgement Agreement dated 9th September, 1996
among the GOK and the members of the Consortium;
60
WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to industrially
and commercially develop the Infrastructure Corridor
and finance, own  and/or operate  such developments
in the manner contemplated by this Agreement;
WHEREAS,   under   the   above   recited   premises,   GOK
has undertaken to extend to and provide the Company
with   the   necessary   governmental   actions,   cooperation
and assistance and grant the Company rights required
for   the   industrial   and   commercial   development   of   the
Infrastructure   Corridor,   including   the   services   and
businesses   contemplated   in   Schedule   4,   which   GOK
believes is in the best interests of the State of Karnataka
and its citizens because, among other things, it will (i)
promote industrial,  commercial and economic growth in
the Infrastructure Corridor, the cities of Bangalore and
Mysore and the State of Karnataka generally, (ii) create
new jobs, (iii) provide the State of Karnataka a much
needed world­class expressway between Bangalore and
Mysore, (iv) create a counter­magnet to Bangalore city
and (v) help in promotion and development of world­class
tourism; and
WHEREAS, the Company will assign its rights under
this Agreement to the various Project Companies, each of
which   will   develop,   construct   and   finance   part   of   the
Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   in   a   manner   to   be
determined   by   the   Company   in   accordance   with   this
Agreement;
NOW,   THEREFORE,   in   consideration   of   the   mutual
premises, covenants and promises herein contained, the
Company and GOK do hereby agree as follows:”
(emphasis supplied)
Suffice it to observe that the underlying concern of the State was
about the increasing urbanisation problems and to assuage the
hardship caused on that account to the general public.   The
Project, as envisaged and finalised was intended to achieve the
objective   of   orderly   development   of   Bangalore   as   a   major
industrial,   commercial   and   residential   city.     The   Integrated
61
Infrastructure Corridor (the Project) was to consist of residential,
industrial and commercial facilities, amongst other things, selfsustaining   townships,   expressways,   utilities   and   amenities
including power plants, industrial plants, water treatment plants
and other infrastructural developments, as envisaged in the PTR,
as amended.   The objective of the Project was also to ensure
smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore;
to create new job opportunities for the residents in and around
the Infrastructure Corridor; promote tourism; decongest traffic
etc. 
41. Notably,   the   PTR   had   suggested   creation   of   seven
Townships, but in the final decision, as noted in the FWA, only
five Townships have been approved as part of the Project being
Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7.  It was a conscious decision taken by
the State to have limited number of self­sustaining Townships in
the entire belt, so as to fulfil the National and State policy goals
of population dispersion and to ensure proper functionality in the
region.   In other words, the FWA predicates that the Project
Proponents will be allowed to develop only five Townships at the
demarcated   locations   and   which   are   self­sustaining   with
62
sufficient infrastructure for ensuring smooth and accident­free
traffic on Bangalore­Mysore Expressway stretched to about 140
kilometres.  Keeping that objective in mind, the stipulations and
specifications in the FWA read with the relevant portion of the
PTR will have to be examined.  There is no room for giving liberal
meaning   to   the   stipulations   and   specifications   which   would
inevitably defeat and frustrate the underlying objective of the
Project ­ of orderly development of Bangalore City and to address
the ever­increasing urbanisation problems.
42. Be it noted that the FWA executed between the State and
the Project Proponents delineates the nature of contract and the
scope of work to be carried out by the Project Proponents, as per
the terms and conditions specified therein.   It is an integrated
project   not   only   for   construction   and   management   of
Expressway, but also creation of Townships at the demarcated
location(s) as per the specifications and area earmarked therefor.
The “Infrastructure Corridor” has been defined as having the
same meaning as set forth in the recital (4th WHEREAS clause) of
the FWA.   It means, collectively, the Land, the Toll Road, the
Townships, the Power Plants, the Telecommunication Facilities,
63
Water Supply Facilities and the Waste Water Treatment Facilities
and   other   developments,   and   the   acquisition,   design,
construction, engineering, financing and implementation thereof,
as referred to in the PTR.  “Townships” is, therefore, an identified
and   well­defined   component   of   the   “Infrastructure   Corridor
Project”.  It has been defined as follows: ­
““Townships”   means   the   townships   described   as
Townships 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the Infrastructure Corridor
Project Technical Report which will be developed by the
Company and/or the Project Companies for the industrial
and  commercial  growth  and  other  development   of   the
Infrastructure   Corridor,   and   the   provision   of   roads,
supply of water and electricity, street lighting, sewage,
conservancy   and   such   other   conveniences   and   socioeconomic infrastructure, inter alia comprising of housing
schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open
spaces as set forth in Schedule 4 attached hereto.”
From this definition, it is amply clear that only five Townships
(each   having   different   purpose   –   such   as   Corporate   Centre,
Industrial   Centre,   Ecotourism   Centre,   Heritage   Centre   and
Commercial Centre) have been envisaged in the Infrastructure
Corridor Project.   The location(s) of these five Townships have
been identified in the PTR.  Besides the location(s), the extent of
area to be utilised for creation of each Township has also been
specified   in   the   PTR,   which   applies  proprio   vigore  to   the
expression “Townships” in the FWA.  The term “Townships”, no
64
doubt, includes housing, but a standalone group housing scheme
cannot be regarded as a Township as such.   The Townships
would, however, comprise of not only housing, but also schools,
hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open spaces, as noted
in Schedule 4, which reads thus: ­
“SCHEDULE 4
Bangalore­Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Possible
Business and Services
1. Power
Generation & Transmission
Distribution & Metering
2. Water
Purification & Transmission
Distribution
Reservoirs
3. Sewage
Collection & Treatment
Recycling & Selling the water
Selling by product
4. Tele­communication
Transmission & Switching
Distribution in township
5. Expressway toll facilities
6. Restaurants and Gas Pumps
7. Interchange Plazas
8. Hospitals
9. Schools
Primary and High Schools
Colleges
10. Hotels & Motels (Townships)
11. Real Estate
65
­ Commercial
­ Industrial
­ Housing
­ Municipal
­ Rental
12. Garbage
13. Cable TV
14. Parking Authority
15. Entertainment
­ Golf Course
­ Movie Theatres
­ Bars
­ Amusement Park
16. Marriage Mandaps
17. Temples and religious activities
18. Convention and Exhibition Centres
19. Land Management
20. Industrial Plants
21. Any other such business area which may emerge
from time to time as permitted by law.”
Besides Schedule 4, it may be appropriate to advert to Schedule
1,   which   deals   with   the   total   Land   to   be   used   for   the
Infrastructure Corridor Project.  The bifurcation of the extent of
land to be used for different activities, such as Toll Road and
Township  areas township­wise,  is also  specified.   Schedule  1
reads thus: ­
“SCHEDULE 1
Land
TOTAL TOTA
66
L
GOVT
.
PVT
.
(Acres)
Toll Road 1,499 5,500 6,999
Township 1 328 2,447 2,775
Township 2 614 1,222 1,836
Township 4 684 931 1,615
Township 5 2,592 90 2,682
Township 7 1,239 3,047 4,286
TOTAL 6,956 13,237 20,193
The figures noted above are approximates.”
To   put   it   differently,   the   Project   Proponents   are   obliged   to
construct the five Townships at the demarcated location(s) only
and to the extent of land specified therefor.  Any other proposal of
the Project Proponents would be nothing short of deviation from
the FWA in particular.  It is not necessary for us to dilate on the
essential   specifications   and   components   to   constitute   a
Township.  Suffice it to observe that the Project Proponents are
obliged   to   construct   housing   in   the   area   demarcated   for
Townships   and   ensure   that   the   other   socio­economic
infrastructure components such as schools, hospitals, shopping
complexes,  parks   and  open   spaces  etc.  are   also   provided  for
within   the   Townships.     The   construction   of   the   essential
components   including   housing,   as   expressly   provided   in   the
FWA, must also comply with the municipal laws governing such
constructions.  For, Schedule 2 of the FWA reads as follows:­
67
“SCHEDULE 2
Approvals
The   Company   shall   have   received   the   required
permissions, approval, sanctions and/or licences under
the following acts and rules of GOI and GOK:
1. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3(1)
and Section 3(2)(v).
2. Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – Rule 5(3)(a);
3. Water   (Prevention   and   Control   of   Pollution)   Act,
1974 – Section 25.
4. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981­
Section 21.
5. Clearance and confirmation from GOK that the Land
does   not   contain   reserve   forest   under   the   Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 44 and Section
28.
6. Exemption   under   Section   20   of   the   Urban   Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for holding land
in the site falling within the Urban Agglomerations.
7. Declaration by GOK under the appropriate Act and
formation of Greenbelt.
8. Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Section 9 in respect of
stamp duty payable on the amounts secured any by
mortgage   deeds   executed   in   connection   with   the
Infrastructure Corridor Project.
9. Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
10. Consent of the Telegraph Authority under Section 4
of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and Part V of the
Indian   Telegraph   Rules   for   the   provision   of
telecommunication facilities.
11. Permissions approvals under the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 for,
 Offshore borrowings and debt servicing.
 Appointment   of   and   payment   to   the   foreign
contractors.
 Purchase or lease of equipment supplies from
abroad.
 Appointment   of   and   payment   to   nonresident/foreign   consultants,   advisors   and
experts.
68
 Consent   to   remit   dividends   to   non­resident
shareholders.
 Consent   for   remittance   to   non­resident
directors.
 Permission for creation of securities in favour of
non­resident lenders.
12. Exemption under Section 9 of Karnataka Stamp Act
for purchase of the Land.
13. Rural Development and Panchayat Raj.
14. Applicable rules of the Irrigation Department of
GOK.
15. Town & Country Planning Act, 1961.
16. Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules, 1964 and
1965.”
43. Indeed, while planning for the development of Townships, it
is open to the Project Proponents to deviate from the PTR within
the defined norms to the extent such deviation is required to
enable   the   parties   to   realise   the   full   benefits   intended   from
development of the Project.  But, that is required to be done only
with prior written approval of the State.  This is made amply clear
by Article 7.1 of the FWA itself.  Article 7 reads thus: ­
“ARTICLE 7.  TOWNSHIPS.
7.1   Development.   Each   of   GOK   and   the   Company
acknowledges   and   agrees   that   the   industrial   and
commercial   development   of   the   Townships   by   the
Company   is   an   integral   part   of   the   Infrastructure
Corridor Project and its goal of increasing and promoting
industry,   trade,   commerce   and   tourism   in   Bangalore,
Mysore   and   the   Infrastructure   Corridor.     Accordingly,
GOK   will   assist   the   Company   in   the   manner
contemplated herein so that the Company may develop
the   Townships   in   the   manner   described   in   the
Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report and as
69
authorised   in   the   Government   Order.    The   Company
may deviate from the Infrastructure Corridor Project
Technical   Report   in   the   development   of   the
Townships   within   the   applicable   law   to   the   extent
such   deviation   is   required   to   enable   the   Parties   to
realize the full benefits intended from development of
the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   and   with   prior
written approval of GOK which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld by GOK.
7.2.  Operation and Maintenance. GOK and the Company
agree that the Company shall have the right to operate
the Townships. The Company and GOK shall enter into
an agreement negotiated in good faith by each for the
operation and  maintenance   and   in   accordance   with
applicable   laws.  Notwithstanding   the   previous
sentence   on   the   first   anniversary   of   the   Township
Completion Date, the Company shall transfer to GOK
the   assets   relating   to   the   Townships   set   forth   in
Schedule  5 and the  right of  way  over the  Land that
may be required with respect to such assets, but not
including  any  ownership   interest   in  any  part  of  the
Land   (the   “Transferred   Township   Assets”)   and   shall
assign the administration of such Townships to GOK
or a GOK Governmental  Instrumentality   designated
by  GOK, GOK  shall  pay  to  the  Company  the  sum  of
Rs.1 for such Transferred Township Assets and shall
assume   all   obligations   relating   thereto   and   to   the
administration  of  the  Townships.  GOK shall contract
with the Company to provide to the Townships after such
assumption the utilities  and   amenities   theretofore
provided   by   the   Company   or   its   Affiliates   or   to   be
thereafter provided for which the Company shall receive
reasonable compensation agreed to by the Parties in good
faith negotiation. GOK will indemnify and hold harmless
the Company and its Affiliates and each of its and their
respective directors, managers, officers, employees  and
agents from any and all expense, loss or claim relating to
the Townships (or any assets or part thereof) and the
administration,   management   and   operation   thereof
arising in respect of any date on or after  the   date   of
such possession and assumption.
7.2.1  Deliveries Upon Transfer.   Each Party shall
deliver   to   the   other   Party   all   documents   and
things necessary to effect the transfer set forth
above, including (i) the delivery by the Company
70
of an agreement assigning and transferring the
Transferred   Township  Assets,   (ii)   the  delivery
by   GOK   of   an   agreement   in   which   GOK
assumes   all   obligations   of   the   Company
relating   to   the   Transferred   Township   Assets
and   the   administration,   management,
operation   and  maintenance  of   the   Townships
after the date of such assumption and releases
in full the Company and its Affiliates from all
liability   relating   to   the   Transferred   Township
Assets and such administration, management,
operation and maintenance after such date and
(iii)   the   delivery   by   GOK   to   the   Company   of
Rs.1.
7.2.2    Maintenance.     In   connection   with   the
transfer contemplated by this Paragraph 7.2, GOK
will offer to the Company the right to provide all
utilities and amenities to the Townships on terms
mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The failure
of the Parties to mutually agree to the provision of
any such utilities or amenities will entitle GOK to
contract   the   provision   of   such   utilities   or
amenities   with   a   third   party,   GOK   or   a   GOK
Governmental Instrumentality on terms no more
favourable   then   those   offered   by   GOK   to   the
Company.
7.3   Construction   Responsibilities.   The   Company   shall
assure   that   its   construction,   development   and
maintenance   obligations   in   relation   to   each   Township
shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of
this Agreement.
7.4. Completion of the Townships.   Within  30  days  of
the completion of the full industrial, commercial and
other   development,   including   the   services   and
businesses   contemplated   in   Schedule   4,   of   the
Townships (including sale by  the  Company  of  those
parts of the Townships intended to be sold as part of
the   development   of   the   Townships),   the   Company
shall deliver a notice in writing to GOK with regard to
such   completion   (The   “Township   Completion
Notice”). The Company shall specify in such Township
Completion Notice the date on which full development of
the Townships was completed (the “Township Completion
Date”). The parties understand that the Company will
71
develop   the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   in   a
coordinated manner in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement and that work at anytime may be conducted
on all or any part of the Land with respect to the Toll
Road, the Townships, the Water Supply Facilities, the
Telecommunication Facilities, the Power Plants and the
utilities   and   other   supports   ancillary   thereto   in
furtherance of the Infrastructure Corridor Project.  The
basic   infrastructure   for   the   Townships   will   be
substantially  completed   (i.e.   minimal   reasonable
facilities that enable some people to be able to live in
the   Townships   shall   have   been   completed)   within
twelve   (12)   years   from   the   date   of   the   Toll   Road
Completion  Notice.    The  Township  Completion  Date
in   no   event   shall   be   later   than   the   date   which   is
thirty   (30)   years   from   the   date   the   Toll   Road
Completion  Notice  as  or  should  or  would  have  been
delivered   pursuant   to   the   provisions   of   Paragraph
6.6.2 and clause (iii) of Paragraph 6.6.3.
7.5  Warranties.  The Company warrants to GOK that:
7.5.1   The   Company   will   industrially   and
commercially   develop   the   townships   so   as   to
promote   the   industry,   trade,   commerce   and
tourism in such Townships as intended by the
Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report;
7.5.2 all the skill and care to be expected of a
professionally   qualified   and   competent   designer
experienced in work of similar nature and scope
as   that   required   in   connection   with   the
development of the Townships will be exercised in
the design of the Townships;
7.5.3   the developments in the Townships will,
when completed, comply in all material respects
with all applicable Laws of India;
7.5.4     the   Townships   will   be   developed   using
proven   up­to­date   good   practices   which   are
consistent with applicable Laws of India;
7.5.5    no goods or materials generally known to
be deleterious or otherwise not in  accordance
with good engineering practice will be specified or
selected by the  Company or any one acting on its
behalf and no goods or materials which, after their
specification or selection by or on behalf of the
72
Company  but before being  incorporated into the
developments of the Townships, become generally
known   to   be   deleterious   or   otherwise   not   in
accordance with good engineering practice, will be
incorporated   into   the   development   of   the
Townships; and
7.5.6   it will obtain all necessary approvals from
an   appropriate   GOK   Governmental
Instrumentality   with   regard   to   the   Technical
Requirements for the Townships.
7.6 Execution   of   Documentation.   GOK   and   the
Company   shall   execute   such   agreements,
Certificates,   instruments   and   other
documentation   in   order   to   give   effect   to   the
purposes of this Article 7.”
(emphasis supplied)
44. Article   3   deals   with   the   obligations   of   the   State   for
implementation of the Project referred to in the FWA.   Much
emphasis has been placed on Article 3.2.3, which postulates that
the State will not restrict the use of the land in any way and the
Project   Proponents   shall   have   full   freedom   and   discretion   to
industrially and commercially develop and use the land.  Article 3
reads thus: ­
“ARTICLE 3. OBLIGATIONS OF GOK
GOK covenants, agrees and undertakes that it shall
perform,   and   shall   cause   its   Governmental
Instrumentalities   to   perform,   each   of   the   following
obligations:
3.1.  Approvals.
3.1.1 GOK   shall   use   its   best   efforts   to   grant,   and
cause its Governmental  Instrumentalities,   GOI   and
GOI   governmental   Instrumentalities   to   grant,   all
Approvals required in connection with the Infrastructure
73
Corridor Project,  including   all   Approvals   listed   on
Schedule 2.
3.1.2   GOK shall use its best efforts to dispose of, resist
and   resolve   any   obstacles   or   impediments   created   or
placed by any Person to thwart or challenge any part of
the Infrastructure Corridor Project. 
3.2  Land
3.2.1 GOK shall use its best efforts to, and cause its
Governmental Instrumentalities to, promulgate, facilitate,
initiate,   advocate   and/or   amend   to   the   full   extent
possible under the Laws of India any and all enactments,
acts and legislation necessary or desirable to enable GOK
or   any   GOK   Governmental   Instrumentality   to   obtain,
procure and/or transfer the Land to the Company for the
purposes set forth in this Agreement.
3.2.2. GOK  shall  authorise  and take  whatever other
action that may be necessary for the   use   of   any   part   of
the   Land   and/or   any   other   tract   of   land   reasonably
requested by the Company as a waste dump/disposal
site for the waste generated by any of the Components of
the Infrastructure Corridor Project during construction
and development of the Infrastructure Corridor Project,
all in accordance with applicable law.
3.2.3 GOK   covenants   that   it  will  not   restrict   the
use  of   the  Land   in   any  way   and   that   the  Company
shall have full freedom and discretion to industrially
and   commercially   develop   and   use   the   Land,   as
generally   contemplated   by   this   Agreement   except
that GOK shall zone and rezone, and shall cause to be
zoned and rezoned, all Land in  a manner consistent
with   its   intended  use   in  the   Infrastructure  Corridor
Project   as   contemplated   by   this   Agreement   or   as
reasonably   requested   by   the   Company,   all   in
accordance with applicable law.
3.2.4 GOK covenants that upon transfer of the Land
as contemplated hereby, the  Company   will   have
good, valid, clear and marketable title to the Land and all
buildings, structures and other improvements thereon,
free of any Encumbrances, GOK will indemnify and  hold
harmless and the Company and its Affiliates and their
respective directors, managers, officers, employees and 
agents   from   any   and   all   expenses,   loses   or   claims
relating to the use or ownership of such Land by the
74
Company   or   any   project   Company   in   the   manner
contemplated herein.
3.2.5 Company shall request and GOK shall use its
best efforts to cause GOK Instrumentalities to, remove in
the most expeditious manner possible any person that
trespasses or encroaches on any part of the Land or any
right of the Company hereunder and shall take all other
action reasonably requested by the Company to permit
the Company to fully enjoy its rights thereon or thereto
and to develop the Land in the manner contemplated in
this Agreement.
3.2.6 GOK   covenants   that   it   shall   provide   all
assistance reasonably requested by the Company with
respect   to   clearance   and   preparation   of   the   Land   for
development in the manner contemplated herein.
.....”
(emphasis supplied)
Considering the fact that the State is obliged to facilitate the
Project Proponents to deviate from the PTR specifications adopted
in the FWA for the development of Townships, that does not
mean that the Project Proponents will set up housing complex at
location(s)   other   than   those   demarcated   for   five   Townships
including not providing for other components of Townships in the
proposal or limit the proposal only to one component, such as
housing   and   excluding   the   other   mandatory   components   ­
schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks and open spaces
etc.     Such   interpretation   cannot   be   countenanced   and   if
accepted, it would inevitably defeat the very purpose of the welldefined project intended to address the increasing urbanisation
75
problems and for orderly development of Bangalore City including
smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and Mysore
Expressway.
45. The   next   question   is:   whether   the   stipulations   and
specifications in the FWA regarding the scope of work and the
application   of   both   parties   stood   modified   or   altered   due   to
supplementary   agreements   dated   6.10.1999   and   31.3.2000?
Even on a fair reading of these agreements, we find that there is
no express clause therein which would alter the scope of work
and the obligations of both parties regarding the setting up of five
self­sustaining   Townships   only   at   the   demarcated   location(s).
The supplementary agreements, however, deal with other aspects
with which we are not concerned nor are the same relevant to
decide the matters in issue.  Similarly, the Tripartite Agreement
dated 9.8.2002 between the State, NICE and NECE also does not
alter or modify the stipulations and specifications for setting up
of   five   self­sustaining   Townships   only   at   the   demarcated
locations.  The High Court has placed emphasis on clause 1.1.3
of the Tripartite Agreement, which reads thus: ­
“1.1.3  Stage 1 of the Infrastructure Corridor shall mean
(a) Toll road (Section ­A)
76
(b) Acquisition of the land and such rights,
title and interests therein as may be necessary
for the above­mentioned roads and development
and sale of land.
(c) Basic   development   and   sale   of   land,
including   that   at   ten   (10)   interchanges   and
Township­1”
We fail to understand as to how this clause can be construed to
mean that the original stipulations and specifications regarding
the   five   designated   Townships   in   the   FWA   stood   modified   or
altered in any manner.  This clause only deals with the meaning
of “Stage 1 of the Infrastructure Corridor”.   Indeed, clause (c)
thereof refers to Township–1, but that reference is in the context
of basic development and sale of land, and by no stretch of
imagination,   can   be   construed   to   mean   that   Township–1
(Corporate Centre) could be set up at any other location much
less at intersections demarcated in the PTR.   The purpose of
intersections is to provide for free flow of traffic across the area.
All the five Townships referred to in the PTR are indisputably far
away from intersections.   Despite that, the Project Proponents
have proposed for group housing scheme in Section A of the
Project at intersections 5/7 thereat on the peripheral road.  This
is notwithstanding the fact that even the Tripartite Agreement
77
does   not   modify   the   location(s)   and   specifications   for   the
Townships referred to in the PTR, which forms part of the FWA. 
46. The thrust of the argument of the Project Proponents is that
housing is a permitted usage, in terms of the ODP/Master Plan.
For, the area for which the proposal for group housing scheme
had been submitted is within yellow zone/residential zone.  The
question is: whether the Project Proponents can rely solely on
ODP/Master Plan, notified by the Planning Authority in exercise
of statutory function as a Planning Authority (for the entire area
including the Project area)?   The ODP/Master Plan, no doubt,
would apply and must be reckoned if any building proposal/plan
is submitted to the Planning Authority.   However, the Project
Proponents are obliged to develop the Project only in the manner
provided for in the FWA.   For, the right to develop the Project
bestowed on the Project Proponents flows, primarily, from the
FWA and the supplementary agreements in that regard.  Unless
the FWA enables the Project Proponents to set up Townships at
location(s) other than location(s) for five Townships demarcated
in the FWA read with PTR and as standalone group housing
scheme, the question of Project Proponents unilaterally using the
78
allotted land for construction of a group housing scheme spread
over in 42 acres and 30 guntas, that too at location(s) other than
demarcated for five Townships, cannot be countenanced.   Only
upon grant of prior permission by the State in that regard, the
stipulations   in   the   FWA   (about   the   location(s)   of   the
Townships/group   housing   scheme),   would   stand   relaxed   and
modified and the Project Proponents would then be entitled to
pursue such proposal with the Planning Authority.   The State
can do so in terms of Article 3.2.3 and the Project Proponents can
request   the   State   in   that   regard   by   invoking   the   enabling
provision in Article 7.1 (both of the FWA). 
47. To put it differently, the zone specified in the ODP/Master
Plan  per se  is not enough to allow the Project Proponents to
unilaterally use the land made over to them after acquisition
from private land owners for the Project, for purpose and manner
other than specified in the FWA and the PTR.
48. Much emphasis was placed on the order dated 3.11.2009
passed by this Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 144/2006 and
connected   contempt   petitions   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   3492­
3494/2005 and connected appeals to contend that the Planning
79
Authority   and   the   State   were   obliged   to   allow   the   Project
Proponents to complete the Project and also permit them to use
the land allotted to them, as per the alignment specified in the
ODP/Master   Plan   dated   12.2.2004.     The   said   order   dated
3.11.2009 reads thus: ­
“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on
the Contempt Application.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
after   going   through   the   materials   on   record   and   the
application for Contempt, we are of the view that pending
final disposal of the Contempt proceeding, the following
order may be passed: ­
By   a   final   Judgment,   this   Court   directed   the
State/respondents to implement the Bangalore­Mysore 1
Infrastructure  Corridor Project.  Unfortunately,  the  said
project   has   not   yet   been   implemented   by   the
State/respondents. On 4th of February, 2009, when this
Contempt proceeding was taken up for hearing by this
Court, Mr. G. E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of
India (as he then was) appearing for the State, stated
before the Court that the State Government has decided
to   implement   the   Judgment   of   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka, as upheld by this Court, and needs time for
implementation of the decision. Unfortunately, in spite of
such submission made by the learned Solicitor General of
India (as he then was), we are informed that the project
has not yet been implemented. While some argument was
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the
Advocate General of the State, who is present today in
Court,   who   submitted   before   us   that   the   State   has
already taken all steps to implement the project and in
fact,   some   lands   have   already   been   allotted   to   the
applicants.   Since   the   learned   Advocate   General   of   the
State submitted that all possible steps have been taken to
implement the project and to act in compliance with the
Judgment   of   this   Court,   we   direct   that   the   2   State
Government shall constitute a Committee to be headed by
the   Chief   Minister   of   Karnataka   for   the   purpose   of
implementation   of   the   project   in   question,   which   will
submit   a   report   by   22nd  of   November,   2009  as   to
80
allotment  and  possession  of   lands   for  completion  of
the  project  and   such   steps  can  be  taken  within  the
time   that  may   be  mentioned   in   the   report   and   the
project   shall  be   allowed   to  be   completed   as  per  the
alignment specified in the Outline Development Plan
dated 12th of February, 2004 issued by the Bangalore
Mysore   Infrastructure   Corridor   Area   Planning
Authority as per the Town and Country Planning Act.
Let this matter be placed for further orders on 26th of
November, 2009 at 3.30 PM.”
(emphasis supplied)
Indisputably, these contempt petitions were in reference to the
order passed by this Court on 20.4.2006 in Civil Appeal Nos.
3492­3494/2005 and connected appeals.   Those appeals were
against the decision of the High Court, which had considered two
questions   posed   before   it,   as   noted   in   paragraph   21   of   the
reported judgment in  All   India  Manufacturers   Organisation
(supra).  The same reads thus: ­
“21. The High Court in the impugned judgment (vide
para   18)   raised   the   following   two   questions   for
consideration in the three writ petitions:
“(1) Whether the FWA  entered  into  between the
Government of Karnataka and Nandi was a result
of any fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by
J.C.   Madhuswamy   and   others   and   the   State
Government?
(2) Whether any excess land than what is required for
the Project had been acquired by the State Government
and whether it is open to it to raise such a plea?””
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the State
and all its instrumentalities, including the KIADB to execute the
81
Project as conceived originally and to implement the FWA in its
letter and spirit.  That direction was the subject matter of assail
by   the   State   on   the   ground   that   the   direction   amounted   to
mandamus to specifically perform the FWA, which is extremely
complex contract.   At the same time, the State had contended
that the Project was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation and
mala fide.   However, the latter plea was given up before this
Court as noted in paragraph 24 of the reported judgment. 
49. The fact remains that the original proceedings in the form of
writ petitions were filed as public interest litigation before the
High Court, challenging the Project in question, the stipulations
in the FWA and because in the garb of the Project, acquisition of
excess land was resorted to by the State, which would eventually
result   in   undue   profiteering   by   Project   Proponents.     In   our
opinion, neither the judgment rendered in appeal by this Court in
All   India   Manufacturers   Organisation  (supra)   nor   the
observation found in the order dated 3.11.2009 will be of any
avail to the Project Proponents.   For, the Court was not called
upon to adjudicate the question even indirectly, as to whether the
subject proposal for setting up of group housing scheme could be
82
proceeded directly before the Planning Authority just because it
is in conformity with the ODP/Master Plan and even though it is
proposed at a location different than the demarcated location(s)
for the five Townships in the FWA read with the PTR.  No such
plea was raised by the Project Proponents.  In other words, none
of the Court orders referred to by the Project Proponents had
examined the questions/issues involved in these appeals.
50. Admittedly,   in   the   present   case,   the   modified   proposal
submitted by the Project Proponents on 5.5.2012 for developing
42 acres 30 guntas of land as group housing scheme, pertained
to Survey Nos. 17(P), 18, 19, 20/1, 20/3, 21/1(P), 21/2A2(P),
21/2B(P),   21/2C(P),   21/2D(P)   and   21/2E(P)   at   village
Kommagatta,   Kengeri   Hobli,   Bangalore   South   Taluk   (at
intersection 5/7, Section A of the Project on the peripheral road).
It was not for setting up of Township as such.  Neither the PTR
nor the FWA envisages construction of standalone group housing
scheme, that too at a location other than demarcated location(s)
for five Townships.  Thus, it was a clear case of deviation from
the stipulations and specification contained in the FWA read with
the PTR; and to relax or modify the same, prior permission of the
83
State is made mandatory in terms of the Article 7.1.   For that
reason,   the   Planning   Authority   had   informed   the   Managing
Director, NECE vide letter dated 28.5.2012 to obtain NOC from
the concerned authorities.  The same reads thus: ­
“BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
LOCAL AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY
OFFICE OF THE DIECTOR FOR TOWN PLANNING, P.B.
NO.5257 M.S. BUILDING, GATE NO.4,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001
No.   BMICAPA/339/ProaPraPa/541/2011­12           Dated:
28.05.2012
The Managing Director
M/s Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited
Midford House. Midford Garden,
M.G. Road, Bangalore­540001.
Sir,
Sub: Regarding   approval   for   construction   of   Group
housing in the land measuring 53 acres 05 guntas
in Sy. No.17 Part, 18, 19, 20/1, 20/3, 20/4, 21/1
part,   21/2A1   part,   21/2A2   Part,   21/2B   part,
21/2C   Part,   21/2D   part   and   21/2E   Part   of
Kommaghatta   Village,   Kengeri   Hobli,   Bangalore
South Taluk.
Ref.: Your   request   date:   NECE/05/170   dated
05.05.2012   with   reference   to   the   above   subject,   on
verification   of   the   proposal   submitted   in   the   letter   at
reference above, the following defects are noticed.
1. Submit Survey sketch Prepared by the taluk Surveyor
and certified by the Tahsildar showing the proposed land,
existing   road   connection,   adjacent   survey   numbers,
Karab land.
2.  Submit No Objection Certificate from the Project CoOrdinal or – BMICP, KIADB (BMICP), P.W.D. with regard
to Provision for this proposal as per the FWA’ entered into
between Government and NICEL.
3. Submit No Objection Certificate from KSPCB, BWSSB,
Environment Pollution Department and BESCOM relating
to the proposed lands.
84
4. Submit   Detailed   Project   Report   relating   to   the
proposed lands.
5. Submit No objection Certificates from Fire Department,
Airport Department and BSNL relating to the proposed
lands.
6. Submit on affidavit stating therein that no disputes or
cases relating to the proposed lands are pending in the
courts.
The above documents have to be submitted within 7 days
of   receipt   of   the   above   letter,   failing   which   your
representation   will   be   rejected   and   will   be   kept   in
abeyance.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/­
Additional Director for Town
And Country Planning and
Member Secretary BMICAPA
Bangalore.”
In response to the above noted communication, the NECE vide
letter   dated   6.6.2012,   wrote   to   the   Member   Secretary   of   the
Planning Authority.  The said letter reads thus: ­
“NANDI ECONOMIC CORRIDOR ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Registered Office: 1, Midford House, Midford Garden, Off.
M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001, INDIA
Telephone: (80) 2555 9819, 2559 5252 Fax: (80) 2555 9998
    Email : nandi@nicelimited.com
Ref: NECE/06/211
Dated: June 6, 2012
Without Prejudice
The Member Secretary,
Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure
Corridor Area Fanning Authority,
Office of the Director of Town and Country Planning,
P.B. No. 5257, Gate No.4, M.S. Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore­560 001
Sir,
85
Sub: Approval for Group Housing Scheme in 42­08G in
Sy.   Nos.   17(P),   18,   19,   20/1,   20/3,   21/1(P),
21/2A1(P), 21/2A2(P), 21/2B(P), 21/2C(P), 21/2D(P)
and   21/2E(P)   of   Kommaghatta   Village,   Kengeri
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Ref.:1)   Your   Letter   No.   BMICAPA/339/Pra.Pra   /
1541/2011­12 dt. 28th May 2012
2) Our   Letter   No.   NECE/05/170,   dated   5th  May
2012.
With   reference   to   your   above   letter,   we   furnish   the
following clarifications/documents to the queries raised
by you therein:
1. We are submitting an original survey sketch prepared
by   the   Taluk   Surveyor   and   duly   attested   an
authenticated by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk.
The survey sketch clearly shows the existing bridge, road,
kharab land and the relevant survey numbers surrounds,
the land for which your approval is now sought.
2. Your   second   query   requesting   us   to   provide   “No
Objection Certificate” from the Authorities referred above
would be once against breach of terms of understanding
of the Framework Agreement since it can be clearly seen
from the sale deeds executed by the KIADB transferring
title of the above survey numbers, photocopy of which
have already been submitted to you, we are, the absolute
owners   of   the   land   in   question   without   any
restrictions/limitations on the use of the land. This is in
conformity   with   the   FWA   where   under   the   State
Government has agreed that it will not restrict use of
land in any manner and we shall be fully entitled at our
discretion   to   industrial   and   commercially   develop   the
land. We reproduce below for you ready reference clauses
3.2.3 and 3.8.3 of the FWA which read as follows:
3.2.3 GOK, covenants that will not restrict the
use   of   the   Land   in   any   way   and   that   the
Company shall have full freedom and discretion
to industrially and commercially develop and use
the   land   as   generally   contemplated   by   this
Agreement   except   that   GOK   shall   come   and
rezone, and shall cause to be zoned and rezoned,
all   Land   in   a   manner   consistent   with   its
86
intended   use   in   the   Infrastructure   Corridor
Project as contemplated by this Agreement or as
reasonably   requested   by   the   Company,   all   in
accordance with applicable law.
3.8.3 GOK   understands   that   each   of   the
components   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor
Project is an integral part of the Industrial and
commercial   development   of   the   Infrastructure
Corridor ma manner designed and calculated to
maximize   the   full   industrial   and   commercial
growth,   potential   and   quality   of   life   in   such
corridor.   Accordingly,   GOK   shall   use   its   best
efforts to cause land of appropriate width from
the   outer   boundaries   of   the   entry   and   exist
points (rampways interchanges) of the Toll Road
the outer boundaries of each of the Townships,
each as identified by the Company, not to be
rezoned   for   use   other   than   for   farming   (such
area  being called  herein  the  “Greenbelt”).  The
appropriate width referred to in the immediately
preceding sentence shall be determined by the
appropriate   Local   Planning   Authority.   In   the
event an area to be included in the Greenbelt is
on the date hereof already developed, GOK shall
not   be   required   to   rezone   such   land   for   the
Greenbelt, GOK acknowledges and agrees that
the   Greenbelt   will   protect   and   buffer   the   Toll
Road and the Townships from unfettered and
uncontrolled   development   which   would   cause
irreparable   harm   to   the   Toll   Road   and   the
Townships   and   undermine   the   goals   and
purposes of the infrastructure Corridor Project
contemplated hereby and that in the event of
breach   of   this   Paragraph   3.8.3   no   adequate
namely,   would   exist   and   damages   would   be
difficult   to   measure   and   accordingly,   the
Company shall be entitled to Injunctive relief for
specific performance pending resolution of any
Dispute   involving   the   provisions   of   this
Paragraph   3.8.3.     In   the   event   any   Person
attempts   to   use   the   land   designated   for   the
Greenbelt for purposes other than farming, the
Company may in its sole discretion take any and
all   steps   it   deems   necessary   or   required,
including the  initiation  of  legal  action  against
such   Person,   to   step   or   prevent   such
unauthorized use. GOK shall support to the full
87
extent possible under applicable law such efforts
of   the   Company   to   stop   and   prevent   such
unauthorized   use.   However,   violation   of   the
Greenbelt by third parties shall not constitute a
GOK Event of Default.
As you are aware, FWA has been upheld by the Hon’ble
High   Court   of   Karnataka   in   its   judgments   dated
21.09.1998 and 03.05.2005  and  the  Hon’ble Supreme
Court in its judgment dated 20.04.2006 has affirmed the
judgment dated 03.05.2005 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka.
The legal position emerging from the reading of FWA and
the rulings of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly shows that
our Company has absolute and full power and authority
to   develop   the   land,   commercially   and   industrially,
subject, however, to the ODP and the zoning regulations.
As   such,   the   question   of   obtaining   No   Objection
Certificate (NOC) or any other form of consent from the
State Government would not arise.
3. The NOC’s obtained from BSNL, Airport and BWSSB
and the acknowledgments for having applied to KSPCB,
BESCOM and Fire Force and enclosed herewith.
4. The NOC’s from KSPCB, BESCOM and Fire Force will
be submitted immediately after their receipt.
5. The detailed Project Report is enclosed.
6. You have requested to submit an Affidavit Stating that
“no   law   suits”   are  pending   in  any  of   the   courts   with
regard to the subject lands. We would like to state that
we   have   already   submitted   the   original   copy   of   the
Affidavit along with the letter cited at reference (ii) copy of
which is enclosed.
In addition to this, a true copy of the learned Advocate
General’s opinion dated 24.12.2011 furnished by in to
the Planning Authority in response to the reference in
this behalf obtained by us under the provisions of the
Right   to   Information   Act   is   enclosed   for   your   ready
reference.
This is  for  your kind information and further  needful
action in the matter.
88
Thanking you
Your faithfully,
For Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited,
Sd/­
Authorised Signatory”
51. Notably,   even   the   State   had   intimated   the   Planning
Authority   vide   letter   dated   19.12.2013   sent   by   the   Principal
Secretary,   Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport
Department, that in respect of change in land use and approval
of   residential   developments,   prior   decision   of   the   Empowered
Committee should be obtained.  The said communication reads
thus: ­
“LoE 114 CRM 2013
Secretariat, Government of Karnataka
Vikasa Soudha
Bangalore, Dated 19th December, 2013
From
Principal Secretary Government of Karnataka
Public   Works,   Ports   and   Inland   Water   Transport
Department Bangalore.
To
Member Secretary
Bangalore­Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning
Authority, Multi­storeyed Building,
Bangalore­1
Sir,
Sub: Re: Furnishing of documents and opinion as sought
for   by   the   authority   with   respect   to   the   BMICP
project.
89
Ref: 1. Your   letter   No.   BMICAPA:   339:PraPra
P:1541:2011­12 dated 17.07.2012
2. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:145:Bhu.U.B:519:2011­12
dated 18.08.2011 and 12.04.2012
3. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:371:Design:1629:2010­11
dated 12.08.2011 and 12.04.2012
4. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:81:Bhu.U.B:422:2011­12
dated 12.08.2011, 07.09.2011 and 09.04.2012
5. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:80:Residential
Plan:421:2011­12   dated   12.08.2011,   04.11.2011
and 14.12.2011
6. Your   letter   No.BMICAPA:79:Residential
Design:420:2011­12 dated 12.08.2011
7. Letter   No.BMICAPA:Yo   Sa:29:Information:2013­14
dated   23.09.2013   of   Shri   B.   Mahendra,   Member
Secretary, BMICAPA, Bangalore.
The Cabinet in its meeting on 30.08.2007 with respect to
the subject matter as mentioned above while referring to
Article   1.1.3   of   the   Tripartite   Agreement   entered   into
between M/s. NICE, M/s. NECEL and the Government of
Karnataka on 09.08.2002 while referring to clauses in
the said  agreement  namely (c)  basic  development  and
sale of land including that at ten (10) interchanges and
Township 1 as follows­
(iii) NICEL or anyone who is implementing the BMICP
shall not be entitled to sell/alienate any portion of the
land   in   the   interchanges/road   portion   of   the   BMICP.
Necessary steps be taken by the concerned department to
cancel the agreement dated 09.08.2002 between NICE
and   the   Government   of   Karnataka   insofar   as   it
introduces   clause   for   sale   of   land   in   Para   1.1.3   or
elsewhere in the agreement.
Apart from that, the judgments rendered in the context of
implementation   of   the   project   by   the   High   Court   of
Karnataka   and   Supreme   Court   mandate  execute   the
project as conceived originally and upheld in Somashekar
Reddy’s case and to implement the FWA in letter and
spirit.   The   clauses   in   the   Tripartite   Agreement   dated
09.08.2002 which are in contradiction with the FWA are
90
to be ignored. Further, the agreement dated 09.08.2002
is to be limited to assignment only.
The PTR submitted by M/s NICE is a prominent part of
the FWA and the project will have to be implemented in
accordance   with   the   Technical   Report.   As   per   the
definition of Toll Road and Township in the FWA which is
reproduced   below,   the   Toll   Road   is   to   be   specifically
restricted   to   Toll   Road   as   defined.   Further,   for   the
residential and commercial development, Township has
been   separately   provided   for   and   in   such   Township,
different   commercial   and   residential   plans   being
provided, the same are to be implemented in accordance
with the rules.
“Toll   Road”   means   the   portion   of   the   infrastructure
corridor   project   consisting   of   Phase   I   Road,   Phase   II
Road, Phase III  Road, Phase IV Road, Phase V  Road,
Phase VI Road, the Bangalore Feeder, the Mysore Feeder,
Link Road and the Outer Peripheral Road collectively;
“Townships” means the townships described as Township
1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in the Infrastructure Corridor Project
Technical Report which will be developed by the company
and/or   project   companies   for   the   industrial   and
commercial   growth   and   other   development   of   the
infrastructure corridor and the provision of roads, supply
of   water,   and   electricity,   street   lighting,   sewage,
conservancy,   and   such   other   conveniences   and   socioeconomic   infrastructure,   inter   alia,   comprising   of
housing, schools, hospitals, shopping complexes, parks
and open spaces as set  forth in Schedule 4 attached
hereto.
M/s. NICE has completed the Peripheral Road and Link
Road.   However,   with   respect   to   the   facilities   that   are
necessary for drivers of vehicles being plied on such road,
such   as   petrol   bunks,   service   stations,   and   truck
terminals,   it   is   noticed   that   till   date   none   of   these
facilities have been provided for.
In the light of the above points, before any decision is
taken with respect to change in land use and approval
of   residential  developments,   the  pros   and   cons  will
have  to be placed before  the  Empowered Committee
constituted under the FWA and decision be obtained
91
from   it.   I   have   been   directed   to   inform   you
accordingly.
Approved by the Principal Secretary PWD
Yours sincerely,
Sd/­
N. Mahalakshamma
Project Coordinator (BMICP), Public Works,
Ports and Inland Water Transport Department”
(emphasis supplied)
52. The fact remains that Article 7.1 of the FWA obliges the
Project Proponents to submit proposal to the State for approval in
case of any deviation.   No such proposal was submitted to the
State.     Instead,   the   Project   Proponents   pursued   the   matter
directly   with   the   Planning   Authority.     In   that   sense,   prior
approval of the State for deviating from the FWA and in particular
constructing housing complex at location other than demarcated
for Townships, is not forthcoming.  Admittedly, no such approval
was taken.  If such proposal was to be submitted to the State, it
would be open to the State to examine the same on its own or
refer the matter to the Empowered Committee constituted for
resolving  such   issues,  as   envisaged  in   Article  4  of   the   FWA.
Article 4 reads thus: ­
“ARTICLE 4   EMPOWERED COMMITTEE
4.1   Empowered Committee.
92
4.1.1 Composition   and   Actions   of   Empowered
Committee GOK represents and warrants that it has
established   a   committee   (the   “Empowered
Committee”) which consists of Chief Secretary and
other members whose postings and titles are as set
forth in Schedule 6 attached hereto.  In the event of
a vacancy on the Empowered Committee, GOK shall
fill such vacancy with a similarly titled person from
the same GOK governmental Instrumentality.   The
Empowered   Committee   shall   meet   only   after
convening a duly called meeting and providing seven
(7) Days prior written notice to the Company so that
the   Company   may   make   available   to   such
Committee a Company representative to answer any
questions that the Empowered Committee may have
and to update the Company on actions taken by
such Committee.
4.1.2  Committee Determinations Do Not Modify
Rights or Obligations. The Parties acknowledge and
agree that the rights and obligations of the Parties to
this   Agreement   and   the   parties   to   any   Project
Contract shall be as set forth in this Agreement and
such   Project   Contract   and   the   Empowered
Committee shall not have the authority to modify or
alter such rights and obligations other than through
a written agreement between the Parties hereto or
the   parties   thereto.   Subject   to   the   foregoing,   the
Empowered Committee shall be the mechanism by
which   GOK   will   coordinate   (with   any   necessary
assistance from the Company) performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, including to:
4.1.2.1    facilitate   and   expedite   all
Approvals   required   in   connection  with
the   Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   at
the state and local level; specifically, as
the   Empowered   Committee   consists   of
high   level   members   from   each   of   the
affected ministries of GOK, it will act as
the  “single   window   co­ordination
centre”   with   respect   to   the   required
clearance   and  permits; such committee
shall also assist the Company in all means
possible with regard to obtaining any and
all Approvals required from GOK or any
GOI Governmental Instrumentality;
4.1.2.2   oversee   GOK   Governmental
Instrumentalities   compliance   with   the
provisions of this Agreement.
93
4.1.2.3     serve as the information centre
and   clearinghouse   for   assembling   and
disseminating information with respect to
the Infrastructure Corridor Project to GOK
and   the   GOK   Governmental
Instrumentalities and the public at large;
and   4.1.2.4   serve   as   the   primary
intermediary on behalf of GOK and GOI
and   any   Governmental   Instrumentality
thereof   in   connection   with   dealings
between GOK and the Company.
4.1.3    Committee Pronouncements and Decisions.
GOK, on behalf of itself and the GOK Governmental
Instrumentalities,   covenants   that   the   Company
may rely on the pronouncements and decisions of
the Empowered Committee as pronouncements and
decisions   of   GOK   or   the   relevant   GOK
Governmental  Instrumentality  in   connection   with
the Infrastructure Corridor Project and that such
pronouncements and decisions shall   be made by
GOK or such GOK Governmental Instrumentalities
in   an   expeditions   and   timely   manner.   GOK
understands   and   agrees   that   this   is   one   of   the
primary purposes of setting up such Empowered
Committee and that it will facilitate and expedite
the   realisation   of   the   goals   of   the   Infrastructure
Corridor Project.
4.1.4       Committee Rights of Observation.   GOK
shall have the right, upon reasonable prior notice to
the Company, through the Empowered Committee,
to observe the progress of Infrastructure Corridor
Project.     The   company   shall   assist   GOK   in
arranging   such   visits.     All   persons   visiting   the
Infrastructure   Corridor   Project   site   on   behalf   of
GOK shall comply with all reasonable instructions,
directions and safety requirements as prescribed by
the Company or its contractors from time to time.
GOK shall cause all such persons to comply with
the Company Rules and Regulations regarding site
safety and access, and in the event any such GOK
employee or representative fails to comply with any
reasonable   requirements   of   the   Company,   GOK
shall be exclusively liable for and shall indemnify,
defend   and   hold   harmless   the   Company   against
any and all damages, costs, claims, expenses and
consequences arising out of such failure. Unless
otherwise provided herein, such rights of GOK to
visit the Infrastructure Corridor Project shall not be
construed   directly   or   indirectly   as   a   contractual
right of GOK to review, advise, recommend, approve
or require changes.”
94
(emphasis supplied)
Indeed, the Empowered Committee is not a statutory committee,
but  it can  be so  constituted  in  terms of Article 4  read with
Schedule   6,   consisting   of   high   officials   of   the   concerned
departments.   This is only to facilitate quick processing of the
proposals   and   implementation   of   the   Infrastructure   Corridor
Project   with   mutual   understanding   and   due   consultation
wherever   necessary.     We   may   assume   that   the   Empowered
Committee may not agree with the proposal, as it may be of the
view that the deviation is quite substantial and would disrupt the
core   objective   of   the   Integrated   Infrastructure   Corridor   (the
Project), which has been designed with purpose of holistic and
orderly development of the region as a whole.  In that eventuality,
the Project Proponents would be required to resort to mechanism
of resolution of disputes envisaged in Article 18 of the FWA,
which reads thus: ­
“ARTICLE 18.  RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
18.1  Mutual Discussions. In the event of a Dispute, the
Parties   shall   endeavour   to   resolve   such   Dispute   by
discussion in good faith in the first instance within thirty
(30) days of Notice of such Dispute.
18.2 Referral to the Expert.   If any Dispute cannot be
settled within such thirty (30) Day period and the Parties
mutually agree in writing, such Dispute shall be referred
to the Expert.  If the Expert does not arrive at a decision
within sixty (60) days or if either Party does not accept
the decision of the Expert, then either Party may, upon
giving   Notice   to   the   other   Party,   refer   the   Dispute
95
immediately for arbitration in accordance with Paragraph
18.3.
…..”
53.   A   priori,   it   must   necessarily   follow   that   the   Project
Proponents cannot and ought not to have directly approached the
Planning Authority for grant of stated permission in reference to
the   provisions   in   the   KTCP   Act   or   ODP/Master   Plan.     As
aforesaid,   if   the   proposal   to   be   submitted   by   the   Project
Proponents   was   compliant   with   the   stipulations   and
specifications given in the FWA read with the PTR, only then the
Project   Proponents   could   justifiably   approach   the   Planning
Authority   directly   for   grant   of   permission   as   per   the   extant
regulations   and   municipal   laws   applicable   in   that   regard,   to
construct buildings and structures for establishing a Township.
In   other   words,   the   proposal/application   of   the   Project
Proponents would be a valid proposal/application to the Planning
Authority only if it was to be in strict compliance with the land
use specified in the FWA read with the PTR.   In case of any
deviation   therefrom,   it   ought   to   accompany   a   formal   prior
approval of the State or the Empowered Committee, as the case
may be, so that it can be processed further by the Planning
Authority.
96
54. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that the appellants
had   permitted   the   Project   Proponents   to   construct   housing
complex at a location outside the demarcated area for the five
Townships   referred   to   in   the   FWA.     Similarly,   as   the   stated
location was falling in yellow zone being residential, the other
neighbouring private land owners were permitted to develop their
property for housing complex.  This argument does not take the
matter any further for the Project Proponents, inasmuch as the
land in question has been allotted to the Project Proponents by
the   State   after   acquiring   it   from   private   land   owners   for
implementation of the Project.   For that reason, the use of the
land   should   be   strictly   in   conformity   with   the   FWA   and   the
applicable stipulations in the PTR.  It is not open to the Project
Proponents to contend that they can unilaterally develop the land
allotted to them by the State in the manner other than specified
in the FWA, being bound by the contractual obligations flowing
from the FWA. 
55. Notably,   the   State   had   granted   prior   permission   to   the
Project Proponents to construct housing units at location(s) other
than   the   five   Townships.     That   was   to   accommodate   the
97
concerned land losers in connection with the same Project as per
the policy of the State.  Besides, the stated housing complex is
not spread over in 42 acres and 30 guntas of land, so as to
disrupt the holistic development envisaged in the FWA/PTR.  In
any case, that could be done only after obtaining prior approval
of the State in that regard.  As regards permission given to the
private land owners, as aforesaid, that was given by the Planning
Authority as per the applicable town planning regulations and in
particular the use specified in the ODP/Master Plan.  For, their
lands did not form part of the Project and also because they are
not bound by the stipulations in FWA in particular, unlike the
Project Proponents.
56. Reverting to the factum of assurance given by the Planning
Authority in the earlier round of writ petition(s) that the modified
proposal/application   dated   5.5.2012   will   be   considered   in
accordance with law and also that the State was party to that
petition, in our view, it does not entail in acquiescence or waiver
of the jurisdictional issue by the State (regarding necessity of
seeking   prior   approval   of   Empowered   Committee   and   No
Objection   (Certificate)/approval   from   the   concerned   State
98
authorities).     In   that,   the   assurance   given   by   the   Planning
Authority cannot come in the way of the State to urge that in law,
the Project Proponents had no authority to develop the lands in
question   except   as   per   the   stipulations   and   specifications
prescribed in the FWA read with the relevant clauses of the PTR.
As a matter of fact, the earlier writ petitions were not decided on
merits, but came to be disposed of leaving all contentions open,
in lieu of the assurance given by the Planning Authority that it
would   consider   the   modified   application   as   per   law.     In   the
present writ petitions, therefore, the State in the larger public
interest is duty­bound to take a legal plea regarding jurisdictional
issue including the extent of right of the writ petitioners (Project
Proponents) being limited to stipulations in the  FWA.   Thus,
neither the unilateral assurance given by the Planning Authority
nor the fact that such specific reason has not been recorded by
the Planning Authority in the impugned communication or that
the State was party to the said writ petitions, would denude the
State from raising the legal question regarding the scope of the
FWA disentitling the Project Proponents for grant of any relief in
the subject writ petitions.  Further, the High Court in the guise of
issuing   mandamus   to   the   Planning   Authority   for   issuing   the
99
Commencement   Certificate,  in   effect,  has   prevented  the   State
from calling upon the Project Proponents to strictly abide by the
stipulations in the FWA.  That cannot be countenanced.
57. It is urged that this Court had held that it would be open to
the Project Proponents to carry on construction work of housing
on lands which are not falling within the Townships area, if the
same were otherwise permissible under the ODP/Master Plan
and the town planning regulations.  This submission is founded
on complete misreading of the observations in the decision of this
Court in  All   India  Manufacturers  Organisation  (supra).   As
noticed   earlier,   the  lis  before   this   Court   including   review
petition(s) had arisen on account of the challenge to the FWA and
also the acquisition of land for the purpose of the corridor project
being excessive.   Neither the High Court nor this Court was
called   upon   to   answer   the   issue   now   raised   by   the   Project
Proponents   that   it   was   free   to   construct   standalone   group
housing scheme and at location(s) outside the demarcated five
Townships (in the FWA/PTR). 
58. Thus understood, the argument of the Project Proponents
that the plea taken by the State is hit by res judicata and in any
100
case,   by   principles   of   constructive  res   judicata,   cannot   be
countenanced.   As a matter of fact, the Project Proponents did
not pursue the plea of res judicata or of constructive res judicata
before   the   High   Court,   as   is   evident   from   the   points   for
consideration   formulated   by   the   High   Court   in   paragraph   9
reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment (in paragraph 22).
Even if it can be considered as a question of law, in our opinion,
the same does not arise in the fact situation of the present case. 
59. The   Project   Proponents   had   also   placed   reliance   on   the
dictum of the High Court in S.M. Mohan Rao Nadgir vs. State
of Karnataka & Ors.22, which, in our opinion has no bearing on
the question that arises for our consideration.  Paragraph 10 of
the said decision as reproduced in the written submission filed
by the Project Proponents, in fact merely sets out the factual
matrix of that case and is certainly not an opinion of the Court
answering the plea required to be adjudicated in the present
appeals.   Even the observation in  Dakshinamurthy   vs.   B.K.
Das, IAS & Ors.23, being an order passed in Contempt Petitions
filed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3492­3494/2005 and connected appeals
22 Decided by the High Court on 28.2.2005 in Writ Appeal No. 72/2004 and connected
writ appeals
23 (2010) 1 SCC 64
101
[decided on 20.4.2006, as reported in All India Manufacturers
Organisation  (supra)]   will   be   of   no   avail   to   the   Project
Proponents.  The fact recorded that the Project shall be allowed to
be completed as per the alignment specified in the ODP/Master
Plan, as noted therein, has no bearing on the questions dealt
with in the present appeals.
60. Be it noted that the Project can be taken forward by the
Project Proponents only in conformity with the stipulations and
specifications in the FWA and the PTR.  Additionally, the Project
Proponents are also obliged to ensure compliance of ODP/Master
Plan and if so complied, the Planning Authority cannot create any
impediment.   If the State accords approval to the deviation in
terms of the FWA itself, the Project Proponents may be competent
to carry on such a work.  To put it differently, prior approval of
the State for deviation from the stipulations and specifications in
the FWA is the quintessence.   We do not wish to burden this
judgment with the argument about attitude of the concerned
authorities in creating obstructions in completion of the Project
because no official has been named in the writ petitions filed by
the Project Proponents being responsible for that situation.
102
61. The argument of the Project Proponents that the housing
complexes can be constructed even at intersections by placing
reliance   on   the   observations   in  All   India   Manufacturers
Organisation  (supra), is begging the question.   The issue is:
whether it is open to the Project Proponents to deviate from the
stipulations   and   specifications   of   the   FWA,   in   particular,   in
respect of Townships without prior approval of the State?   The
issue considered in the earlier rounds of litigation by this Court
was on the basis of stand taken by the State  to  defend the
Project, the FWA and the acquisition of land for the purpose of
the project.  In the present appeals, the matter is required to be
examined in the context of the stand of the Project Proponents
that they are free to carry on construction of housing scheme at
any   location   of   their   choice   even   outside   the   demarcated
location(s)   for   five   Townships,   stretched   over   about   140
kilometres of the expressway, in the FWA and the PTR.
62. Reverting to the dictum in M. Nagabhushana  (supra), the
same will also be of no avail to the Project Proponents as it does
not   militate   against   the   Planning   Authority   and   State,   in
particular.  As already noted, the State is competent to maintain
103
its stand that the legal right of Project Proponents flows only from
the terms and conditions specified in the FWA read with the PTR.
That is a just plea available to the State and must be taken by it
in the larger public interest to ensure that the objective of the
Integrated   Corridor   Project   (the   Project)   is   not   marginalised,
undermined or frustrated in any manner.   If development as
desired   by   the   Project   Proponents   on   the   stretch   of   140
kilometres   of   the   expressway   is   allowed,   it   would   result   in
development   in   manner   other   than   the   one   planned   and
conceived in the FWA and the PTR, the objective of which is to
provide for holistic and orderly development of the self­sustaining
Townships with all basic infrastructure and civic facilities and to
ensure smooth and accident­free traffic between Bangalore and
Mysore; population dispersal as per the National/State policy; to
create new job opportunities for the residents in and around the
Infrastructure Corridor; promote tourism; and decongest traffic
etc.
63. It   is   not   necessary   for   us   to   dilate   on   other   aspects
regarding   the   efficacy   of   the   FWA   and   the   PTR   or   the   other
agreements executed between the parties, having held that it is
104
for the State to consider the proposal for allowing the Project
Proponents to deviate from the stipulations and specifications of
the FWA and the PTR and until that decision is taken by the
State   or   its   instrumentalities   including   the   Empowered
Committee   constituted   in   terms   of   the   FWA,   the   Planning
Authority   cannot   process   the   proposal/application   directly
submitted to it by the Project Proponents.   Further, such noncompliant   proposal/application   submitted   by   the   Project
Proponents directly to the Planning Authority must be regarded
as infirm, invalid and non­est in law.
64. The next question is: whether the findings recorded by the
High Court for setting aside the reasons given by the Planning
Authority in the impugned communication dated 7.2.2015, can
be said to be the just approach of the High Court?  In view of the
conclusion reached by us hitherto, it is not necessary for us to
dilate on the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in
that regard. 
65. Suffice it to observe that assuming the High Court was right
in taking the view as it did to set aside the communication dated
7.2.2015, it was certainly not right in issuing mandamus to the
105
Planning   Authority   to   straightaway   grant   Commencement
Certificate in respect of the modified proposal.  The appropriate
order that could have been passed by the High Court in such a
situation after setting aside the communication dated 7.2.2015,
would have been to relegate the Project Proponents before the
Planning   Authority   for   proceeding   with   this   proposal   in
accordance   with   law   and   applicable   regulations   expeditiously
after considering the other issues/points raised by the State.
The Project Proponents would, however, rely on the exposition in
paragraph 27 of the decision of this Court in  Badrinath   vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.24, which reads thus: ­
“27. This flows from the general principle applicable to
“consequential orders”. Once the basis of a proceeding is
gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior
authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime
– like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC
and the action taken thereon – would fall to the ground.
This principle of consequential orders which is applicable
to   judicial   and   quasi­judicial   proceedings   equally
applicable to administrative orders. In other words, where
an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being
reconsidered by a superior authority (like the Governor in
this case) and if before the superior authority has given
its decision, some further action has been taken on the
basis of the initial order of the primary authority, then
such further action will fall to the ground the moment the
superior authority has set aside the primary order.”
Reliance   is   also   placed   on   Section   15   of   the   KTCP   Act,   in
particular, proviso thereto, which reads thus: ­
24 (2000) 8 SCC 395
106
“15 ­ Permission for development of building or land.­
(1)  On receipt of the application for permission under
section 14, the Planning Authority shall furnish to the
applicant a written acknowledgment of its receipt and
after such inquiry as may be necessary either grant or
refuse a commencement certificate:
Provided that such certificate may be granted subject
to   such   general   or   special   conditions   as   the   State
Government may, by order made in this behalf, direct.
(2)  If the Planning Authority does not communicate
its   decision   to   the   applicant   within   three  months
from   the   date   of   such   acknowledgment,   such
certificate  shall be  deemed to  have  been  granted to
the applicant.
Provided that the land use, change in land use or
the development for which permission was sought for is
in conformity with the outline development plan and the
regulation   finally   approved   under   sub­section   (3)   of
section 13.
(3)   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   section   16,   no
compensation shall be payable for the refusal of or the
insertion   or   imposition   of   conditions   in   the
commencement certificate.
(4)  If any person does any work on, or makes any use
of, any property in contravention of section 14 or of subsection (1) of this section, the Planning Authority may
direct such person by notice in writing, to stop any such
work in progress or discontinue any such use; and may,
after   making   an   inquiry   in   the   prescribed   manner,
remove or pull down any such work and restore the land
to its original condition or, as the case may be, take any
measure to stop such use.
(5)  Any expenses incurred by the Planning Authority
under   sub­section   (4)   shall   be   a   sum   due   to   such
Authority under this Act from the person in default or
from the owner of the land.
Explanation.   ­The   power   to   grant   necessary
permission under this section for a change of user of
land shall include the power to grant permission for the
retention on land of any building or work constructed or
carried out thereon before the date of the publication of
the   declaration   of   intention   to   prepare   an   outline
development plan under sub­section (1) of section 10 or
for the continuance of any use of land instituted before
the said date.
107
(6)  Any   person   aggrieved   by   the   decision   of   the
Planning Authority under sub­section (1) or sub­section
(4)   may,   within   thirty   days   from   the   date   of   such
decision, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed.
(7)  The   prescribed   authority   may,   after   giving   a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant
and   the   Planning   Authority,   pass   such   orders   as   it
deems fit, as far as may be, within four months from the
date of receipt of the appeal.”
(emphasis supplied)
We are not impressed by this submission.  The reported decision
pressed into service does not go to the extent of justifying the
direction issued by the High Court vide impugned judgment to
issue Commencement Certificate.  Indisputably, the question of
issuing   Commencement   Certificate   would   arise   only   if   the
Planning   Authority   was   fully   satisfied   that   the   proposal/plan
submitted by the Project Proponents is compliant in all respects
in reference to the extant town planning rules and regulations.
Moreso, because it is not a case where the Project Proponents
were invoking the provision regarding deemed approval of the
modified plan submitted on 5.5.2012. 
66. As a result, we have no hesitation in taking view that the
direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, in
any case, cannot be countenanced in law.  But this question, if
we may say so, has become academic for the view that we have
108
already taken that the Project Proponents could not have directly
approached   the   Planning   Authority   for   approval   of   modified
proposal, which was replete with deviations from the stipulations
and specifications in the FWA read with the PTR.   This is so
because the right in favour of the Project Proponents to carry on
development work on the lands referred to in the FWA and the
PTR would enure only in conformity with the stipulations and
specifications in the stated documents.   It is not open to the
Project Proponents to develop the land in any other manner,
unless permitted by the State.
67. Taking overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in
allowing the present appeals filed by the Planning Authority and
the State of Karnataka and thereby setting aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court with liberty to the Project Proponents
to first approach the State (under Article 7 of the FWA) for its
prior permission to allow them to deviate from the stipulations
and specifications in the FWA and the PTR.  Upon consideration
of such proposal, the competent authority of the State may take
appropriate decision in the matter and if need be, obtain prior
opinion of the Empowered Committee.   However, this process
109
must be completed in right earnest and no later than six months
from the date of submission of the proposal to the competent
authority of the State.   If the  decision  is adverse to the Project
Proponents, it would be open to them to take recourse to the
disputes resolution mechanism in terms of Article 18 of the FWA,
if so advised.  Only after prior permission is granted by the State
regarding the proposed deviations, the Project Proponents may
then apply to the Planning Authority for permission to construct
buildings/structures   as   per   the   applicable   town   planning
regulations, which be considered on its own merits in accordance
with   law   uninfluenced   by   its   earlier   communication   dated
7.2.2015.
68. We leave all other contentions available to concerned parties
open to be considered by the concerned forum/Court on their
own merits in accordance with law.
69. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is quashed
and set aside and the stated writ petitions filed by the Project
Proponents   stand   dismissed   with   liberty   to   the   Project
Proponents, as aforesaid.  The appeals are allowed in the above
110
terms.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Pending interlocutory
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
..................................J.
  (A.M. Khanwilkar)
..................................J.
(Dinesh Maheshwari)
New Delhi;

May 19, 2020.