2003 Supreme(SC) 554

2003(3) Supreme 800
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., Ashok Bhan, J.
Bakhtawar Trust & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M.D. Narayan & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8951 of 1997
With
C.A. No. 831 of 1998
Decided on 6-5-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Gopal Subramaniam, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocates, Jay Savla, Jayant Trivedi, Ms. Reena Bagga, Satya Narayan, Ms. Meenakshi, Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Ashok B. Patil, Ms. Anu Mohla, E.C. Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary, Santosh Kumar, Amar L.V., S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankul S. Kulkarni, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Prashant Kumar, Joseph Pookkatt and Prasenjit Keswani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. A decision of a Court of law has a binding effect unless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that the said decision would not have been given in the changed circumstances.
2. The Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996)-Constitutional validity -Permission granted to builders to construct eight storied residential building eighty feet in height-High Court found that licence to construct building upto 80 ft. was repugnant to Zonal Regulations framed under Section 13 of Planning Act provided a maximum height of new building as 55 ft.-Impugned Act retrospectively modified Zonal Regulations of 1972 by raising height of buildings from 55 ft. to above 165 ft.-It would no more be possible for a Court to conclude that the concerned buildings violated terms of Zonal Regulations-Impugned Act held constitutionally valid.

       Held : With effect from 1972 to 1984 under the Zonal Regulations the maximum height permissible for any new building was upto 55 fts. However, Rule 16 of Bye- law 38 provided height of the erection or re-erection of any new building up to 80 fts. It is also not disputed that the said Zonal Regulations ceased to have effect after the Comprehensive Development Plan came into force in the year 1985 and after passing of the impugned Act, the height of the new building could be raised to above 50 meters, i.e., 165 fts. (Para 12)

       In the earlier decision of the High Court, it was found that licence to construct the building upto 80 feet was repugnant to the Zonal Regulations framed under Section 13 of the Planning Act which provided a maximum height of new building as 55 feet. Thus, the provision of Zonal Regulations which provided maximum height of 55 feet in case of a new building was, therefore, the basis upon which the High Court proceeded to conclude that the construction of the building violated the prescribed norms. It is manifest that the impugned Act has retrospectively modified the Zonal Regulations of 1972 by raising the height of a building from 55 feet to above 165 feet. The provision of law upon which the High Court has placed reliance has, therefore, undergone a material alteration. The High Court would now find it impossible to take the view that the said building was erected in violation of the law, and that the licence granted therefor, was accordingly legally invalid. (Para 28)

       The impugned Act substituted the existing Regulations with a statutory Zonal Regulation to the extent it provided maximum height of new building. Further, this is done with retrospective effect i.e. for the entire period during which the Outline Development Plan remained in force i.e. from 1972 to 1984. It is settled law that where a

       law iretrospectively amended, the consequences of such retrospective amendment are that all actions have to proceed on the premise that the law, as amended, was always the law in force. In that view of the matter there was neither any need for the legislature to modify the maximum height of a new building in the manner provided in the Planning Act nor to amend the provisions of the Planning Act providing for method of framing Zonal Regulations. (Para 36)

       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 245 and 246-Amending and Validating Act-Legislative competence-It is open to legislature to alter the law retrospectively-Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996.

       Held : The validity of any Statute may be assailed on the ground that it is ultra vires the legislative competence of the Legislature which enacted it or it is violative of Part III or any other provision of the Constitution. It is well settled that the Parliament and State Legislatures have plenary powers of legislation within the fields assigned to them and subject to some constitutional limitations, can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. This power to make retrospective legislation enables the legislature to validate prior executive and legislative acts retrospectively after curing the defects that led to their invalidation and thus makes ineffective judgments of competent courts declaring the invalidity. It is also well settled that a validating Act may even make ineffective judgments and orders of competent Courts provided it, by retrospective legislation, removes the cause of invalidity or the basis that had led to those decisions. The test of judging the validity of the Amending and Validating Act is, whether the legislature enacting the Validating Act has competence over the subject matter; whether by validation, the said legislature has removed the defect which the Court had found in the previous laws; and whether the Validating law is consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. (Paras 14 & 15)

       It is open to the legislature to alter the law retrospectively, provided the alteration is made in such a manner that it would no more be possible for the Court to arrive at the same verdict. In other words, the very premise of the earlier judgment should be uprooted, thereby resulting in a fundamental change of the circumstances upon which it was founded. (Para 25)

       Where a legislature validates an executive action repugnant to the statutory provisions declared by a Court of law, what the legislature is required to do is first to remove the very basis of invalidity and then validate the executive action. In order to validate an executive action or any provision of a statute, it is not sufficient for the legislature to declare that a judicial pronouncement given by a Court of law would not be binding, as the legislature does not possess that power. A decision of a Court of law has a binding effect unless the very basis upon which it is given is so altered that the said decision would not have been given in the changed circumstances. (Para 26)