Important point
If there had been no proper application of mind as regard the requirements of law, the State and the Planning Authority must be held to have misdirected themselves in law which would vitiate the impugned judgment.

Headnote:Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961—Sections 14, 15, 14A —Conversion of residential site for commercial purpose for use of a vegetarian restaurant—Objections filed by Residents’ Welfare Association—Order of sanction granted by State, confirmed by Development Authority—In a residential area in town of Bangalore, allotment of houses had been made to individuals for residential purpose in terms of Comprehensive Development Plan—Changes in land use permissible within the Outline Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations—Running of a hotel was not permissible both under clauses (a) and (b) of the Zoning Regulations in a residential area—Respondent 6 was accorded permission for conversion of land use of 2275 sq.ft. from residential to commercial (restaurant complex)—Such a change in land use was not occasioned owing to topographical, cartographic or other errors or omissions—Bangalore Development Authority having committed serious violation of Zoning Regulations as also Section 14-A of the Act—Order of conversion passed held not sustainable.
Held : It is now well-known that the concept of error of law includes the giving of reasons that are bad in law or (where there is a duty to give reason) inconsistent, unintelligible or substantially inadequate. [See De Smith’s Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th Edn. p. 286] The Authority, therefore, posed unto itself a wrong question. What, therefore, was necessary to be considered by the BDA was whether the ingredients contained in Section 14-A of the Act were fulfilled and whether the requirements of the proviso appended thereto are satisfied. If the same had not been satisfied, the requirements of the law must be held to have not been satisfied. If there had been no proper application of mind as regard the requirements of law, the State and the Planning Authority must be held to have misdirected themselves in law which would vitiate the impugned judgment. (Paras 34 and 35)
We are for the foregoing reasons unable to accept the submission of Mr. Javali that the Act provides for two different schemes, one contained in Sections 14 and 15 and another under Section 14-A of the Act. We are of the opinion that both the provisions are operating in different fields. It is no doubt true that Respondent No. 6 herein applied for change of user from residential to commercial on 04.01.1999 whereafter a publication was made in three newspapers inviting objections from the local residents. It is also true that the Respondent No. 6 herein acted on the basis of the plan sanctioned in this behalf. It may furthermore be true that the Respondent No. 6 was accorded permission as far back as on 20.12.1999, whereas the writ petition was filed on 15.07.2002. However, we have also noticed that in the meanwhile, the Respondent No. 6 committed some other violations. Had the violation in the matter of change in user from residential to commercial been a minor one, probably, this Court might not have interfered but the State of Karnataka and the BDA having committed serious violation of the Zoning Regulations as also Section 14-A of the Act, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be sustained. (Paras 39 and 40)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘the BDA’) had been constituted under the said Act. A Comprehensive Development Plan was prepared by the BDA. In Jayanagar which is a residential area in the town of Bangalore, allotment of houses had been made to individuals for residential purpose only in terms of the said development plan. Whereas the Appellants were allotted houses bearing Nos. 282D and 281D, one K.V. Ramachandra was allotted Plot No. 585. A deed of sale was executed in his favour on 10.12.1994, inter alia, on the condition that the same would be exclusively used for residential purpose only. The Respondent No.6 purchased the said premises from the said K.V. Ramachandra by a registered deed of sale dated 24.08.1998. He intended to convert the land use from residential to commercial wherefor an application was made before the BDA. The said application was treated to be one under Section 14-A of the Act.

3. The Jayanagar 5th Block Residents’ Welfare Association filed its objections thereto on 27.03.1999. It, however, later on issued a no objection certificate, stating :

“...The Association has no objection for conversion of the site for commercial purpose for the use of a vegetarian restaurant. The premises is a corner site and you must arrange separate parking without obstructing the movement of vehicles.”

4. Inspections of the plot in question by two senior officers of BDA were made thereafter.

5. Upon completion of the requisite formalities, sanction for change of land use was issued on or about 07.10.1999. Pursuant to the order of sanction granted by the State of Karnataka, the BDA issued a confirmatory letter dated 10.12.1999 subject to the condition of obtaining necessary building plan approved by the Corporation and providing for parking of vehicles in the building.

6. An objection was raised by the residents of the locality when the said respondent started a restaurant without obtaining any licence therefor. An application for grant of licence was submitted by the Respondent No.6 on 17.01.2000. The Corporation informed the Respondent No. 6 that his application would be considered only upon completion of construction of the building. However, he made another application on 25.02.2000 for grant of licence. He also filed a writ application before the Karnataka High Court, marked as W.P.No. 11139 of 2000 wherein the Corporation was directed to consider his application for grant of licence within six weeks. A building licence was granted in his favour on 12.05.2000 and a modified plan was sanctioned on 19.08.2000. He was granted a licence to run the restaurant till 31.03.2000.

7. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said notification dated 04.08.1999, some of the residents of the locality filed a public interest litigation being Writ Petition No. 9078 of 2001. In the meanwhile a notice was issued to the Respondent No.6 by the Corporation as to why, deviation having been made from the sanctioned plan, the same should not be directed to be removed. As the Respondent No.6 failed to remove the deviated portions, the Corporation by its notice dated 06.01.2002 authorized the Executive Engineer to give effect to the confirmatory order passed by it by removing the deviated portions. The Respondent No.6 thereupon approached the Standing Committee by way of appeal whereafter his hotel licence was renewed. As running of hotel allegedly caused nuisance, a representation was made by the Ladies Association of the locality on 12.01.2002. A further representation was made on 19.01.2002 by the general public.

8. As no response was made in relation thereto, the Appellants herein filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief’s:

“1) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari quashing Order No. UDD 194 BDA 99 Dt. 07.10.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 99

Important pointIf there had been no proper application of mind as regard the requirements of law, the State and the Planning Authority must be held to have misdirected themselves in law which would vitiate the impugned judgment.

Cases Referred (5)

Important point
If there had been no proper application of mind as regard the requirements of law, the State and the Planning Authority must be held to have misdirected themselves in law which would vitiate the impugned judgment.