1998 Supreme(SC) 927

1998(7) Supreme 117
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
M.M. Punchhi, CJI & S.C. Agrawal, A.P. Misra, JJ.
M/s. D.L.F. Universal Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Prof. A. Lakshmi Sagar & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48 of 1992
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4543-4545 of 1992 and
I.A. Nos. 1-42 in SLP (C) Nos. 10914-52of 1991
Decided on 2-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Kapil Sibal, S.S. Javeli, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Veerappa, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ravinder Narain, S. Sukumaran, Sanjiv Sen, Ratanesh, Ms. Deepa Rathore, Ms. Neeti Dixit, P.R. Ramasesh, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, Advocates.

Important Point
Karnataka State Govt. has kept in view the interest of the public in the matter of pollution of the waters of river Arkavati and Thippagon­danahally water reservoir and the availability of supply of water to the city of Bangalore in passing the order dated 29.6.91 giving the approval to the proposed DLF scheme for development of 270 sites for country villas in Bangalore District. The said order does not adverse­ly affect public interest.

Headnote:(i) Public Interest Litigation-Proposed DLF Arkavathi Green Valley Retreat Scheme for development of 270 sites for country villas in Bangalore Distt.-Karna­taka State Govt. granting approval vide order dated 29.6.91-Quash­ed by High Court in writ petitions as it will adversely affect public interest-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether State Govt. kept in view the interest of the public in the matter of Pollution of the waters of river Arkavati and its water reservoir? (Yes) and the availability of supply of water to the city of Banga­lore? (Yes) result-Said order approving proposed scheme of DLF does not affect public interest-DLF’s Appeals allowed-High Court reversed.

       Held that while granting permission the State Government has kept in view the danger of pollu­tion of the waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally water reservoir and has taken adequate precautions against the possibility of such pollution by imposing strict conditions as laid down by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in that regard. While granting approval to the proposed scheme of DLF the State Government has also directed that any monitoring by peasemeters may be undertaken directly by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Water Supply and Sewerage Board independently of DLF. (Para 14)

       Held further : The failure on the part of the Water Supply and Sewerage Board to raise an objection to the revised scheme on the ground of depletion in the availability of water for supply to the city of Bangalore indicates that in view of reduction of density of persons who would be residing in the area under the revised scheme the Water Supply and Sewerage Board felt satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the availability of water for supply to the city of Bangalore on account of construction of 270 villas as per the proposed scheme. The High Court was, therefore, in error in proceeding on the basis that since the Water Supply and Sewerage Board did not file its reply to the writ petitions of the petitioner-respondents, the said Board must be treated to have accepted as correct the case of the petitioner-respondents that the proposed scheme would adversely affect the supply of water to the city of Bangalore from the Thippa­gondanahally water reservoir. (Para 15)

       Consequently held : It cannot, therefore, be said that in passing the order dated June 29, 1991 granting approval to the proposed scheme submitted by DLF the State Government has failed to take into consideration the matters of public interest raised by the petitioner-respondents, namely, possi­bility of pollution of waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahal­ly water reservoir and the depletion in the availability of water for supply to the city of Bangalore. The order dated June 29, 1991 shows that it was passed after the State Government had taken into consider­ation all the relevant factors and approval was given to the proposed scheme after the State Government was satisfied that the proposed scheme will not affect the availability of water for supply to the city of Bangalore and had also prevented the possibility of pollution of the waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally water reservoir by laying conditions. We are unable to hold that on the basis of the material on record the State Government could not reasonably take the view that the proposed scheme would not affect the availability of water for supply to the city of Bangalore and would not result in pollution of the waters of river Arkavati and Thippagondanahally water reservoir. (Para 16)

       Held finally : For the reasons aforementioned we are unable to uphold the im­pugned judgment of the High Court quashing the order of the State Government dated June 29, 1991 giving its approval to the proposed scheme of DLF. (Para 24)

       (ii) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964-Sections 6 and 95-Proposed DLF scheme - State Government granting approval-High Court quashing it on legal grounds-That proposed scheme is for establishment of a township for which Govt. should have followed procedure u/s. 6-Whether cor­rect? (No)-Diversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose-Whether it was in consonance with Section 95 of Land Revenue Act? (Yes)-Whether procedure followed has resulted in denial of any right conferred on petitioner-respon­dents ? (No) - Whether approval order of State Govt. would adversely affect public interest?-(No).

       Held : We are unable to uphold that the grant of approval to the proposed scheme amounts to declaring the said area as a new village or the alteration of the area of an existing village. The question whether the colony which comes into existence under the scheme as proposed is to be declared to be a new village or is to be included in an existing village will have to be considered after the development takes place as proposed in the scheme and at that stage the requirements of Sec­tion 6 of the Land Revenue Act may have to be complied with. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the State Government was required to follow the procedure laid down in Section 6 of the Land Revenue Act before passing the order dated June 29, 1991 approving the proposed scheme. (Para 20)

       As regards diversion of the land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use for construction of villas, it is not disputed that under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act the power to grant the neces­sary permission is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner. The High Court has held that in the present case the said power was not exer­cised by the Special Deputy Commissioner but was exercised by the State Government and that the State Government was not competent to exercise the said power under Section 95. In taking this view the High Court has failed to note that it was not a case of diversion of use of an isolated piece of agricultural land by an individual. This was a case where diversion of use was sought in respect of a large number of plots of land. The matter required examination from various aspects and a composite view had to be taken after ascertaining the views of the concerned departments. The State Government alone could do so and, therefore, the matter was required to be considered by the State Government. Before taking a decision on the matter the State Govern­ment had obtained the views of the Special Deputy Commissioner with regard to diversion of use of the lands under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, as well as the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Bangalore Metropolitan Development Authority and the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. After taking into consideration the views of these departments the order dated June 29, 1991 was passed. Since the Special Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated May 10, 1991, had expressed the opinion that conversion could be allowed it cannot be said that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not exercised the power conferred on him under Section 95 of the Act and the said power has been exercised by the State Government. The State Government has taken note of the views of the Special Deputy Commis­sioner while considering the matter in the proper perspective. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order dated June 29, 1991 was not in consonance with the requirements of Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act. (Para 21)

       In cases where permission to divert has been granted under Section 95 and any person feels that the said permission has been granted in violation of the provisions contained in Section 95(3) of the Act, it is open to him to challenge the same but he cannot claim a right to raise an objection before the Deputy Commissioner at the stage of consideration of the application for diversion. The petitioner-respondents have exercised this right by assailing the permission for diversion before the High Court. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Shri Javeli that the procedure that has been followed in the present case has resulted in denial of any right conferred on petitioner-respondents. (Para 22)

       The High Court has also held that an order for continuation of the permission that had been granted earlier could not be passed since the earlier order for grant of permission had been quashed by the High Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Since the earlier permission granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner had been quashed by the High Court an order for continuance of that permission could not be passed and the proper course was to pass a fresh order for grant of permission for diversion of use under Section 95 of the Act. But having regard to the fact that the matter has been considered by the Special Deputy Commissioner and in his letter dated May 10, 1991 he has expressed the opinion that permission for diversion can be granted the defect in the order of the State Government dated June 29, 1991 is one relating to form only and it does not touch the substance of the matter. The said defect is not such as to call for interference with the order dated June 29, 1991 in proceedings instituted by way of public interest litigation especially when it is found that the said order does not adversely affect public interest. (Para 23)

       Held finally : In the result, while Civil Appeals Nos. 4543-45 of 1992 filed by the State are dismissed as withdrawn, Civil Appeals Nos. 4546-48 of 1992 filed by DLF are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-respondents are dismissed. No costs. (Para 25)