Back
2012(3) SCC 442
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Appellant
VERSUS
THE AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7503-7537 of 2002
Decided on 24-01-2012.
(2010) 7 SCC 129; (2003) 5 SCC 533 – Relied upon
ILR 2006 KAR 318 – Referred
(b) Interpretation of Statute – Validity – Article 14 – Presumption – Statutory provision is presumed to be constitutionally valid – Burden of proving otherwise lies upon the person who alleges discrimination – Respondents pleading before High Court about Section 32(5A) being discriminatory but laying no factual foundation – Plea not maintainable – High Court erred in declaring the provision violative of Article 14. (Para 36, 41)
(1950) 1 SCR 869; 248 U.S. 152; (1959) 1 SCR 629; Ram Krishna Dalmia; (1981) 4 SCC 675 – Relied upon
AIR 1958 SC 538; (1998) 8 SCC 188 – Referred
(c) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Section 32(5A) – Levy necessitated largely because of growth in population and enlargement of the metropolitan area – Loading the new societies with financial burden – Not discriminatory. (Para 42)
(d) Interpretation of statute – Excessive delegation of power – Principles – Court must look into the policy underlying the legislation in question – Reference to the Preamble, the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation and the scheme thereof to be considered – Court would not sit over the wisdom of the legislature. (Para 51)
AIR 1961 SC 1602; (1984) 3 SCC 127; (1984) 4 SCC 27; (2001) 5 SCC 212; (2004) 10 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(1966) 1 SCR 950; (1965) 2 SCR 477; (2000) 5 SCC 471; (1976)1 All England Law Reports 39; (1952) SCR 284; (1989) 4 SCC 683; AIR 1967 SC 1895; (1961) 3 SCR 77 – Referred
(e) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Section 32(5A) – Whether suffers from vice of excessive delegation – Legislative guidelines for the provision can be traced in Preamble of the 1961 and 1976 Acts and the object and scheme of the two legislations – Apart from that, the expression "such portion of the expenditure as the Authority may determine towards the execution of any scheme or work for augmenting water supply, electricity, roads, transportation and such other amenities" supplies sufficient guidance for the exercise of power by the BDA under Section 32(5A) – Exercise of power by the BDA under Section 32(5A) is always subject to directions which can be given by the State Government under Section 65 – Therefore, Section 32(5A) does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. (Para 54, 55)
(f) Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 – Section 32(5A) – Conditions imposed by the BDA requiring the respondents to pay for augmentation of water supply, electricity, transport, etc. are not levy of tax – Not ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution. (Para 64)
(1983) 4 SCC 353; 1993 Supp (4) SCC 461; (1995) 1 SCC 655; 1985 (Supp) SCC 476 – Relied upon
(1981) 4 SCC 391; (1954) SCR 1005; (1954) SCR 1046; (1954) SCR 1055; 1963 Supp (2) SCR 302; (1986) 1 SCC 722 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The Karnataka High Court declared Section 32(5A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, void and inoperative; Quashed the conditions incorporated in the orders passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) sanctioning residential layout plans or work orders in terms of which respondents were required to pay/deposit various charges/sums specified therein and thereby allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
G. S. Singhvi, J.-These appeals are directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed, Section 32(5A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, `the 1976 Act') was declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, void and inoperative and the conditions incorporated in the orders passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) sanctioning residential layout plans or work orders in terms of which respondents were required to pay/deposit various charges/sums specified therein were quashed and a direction was issued for refund of the amount.
2. With the formation of the new Stateof Mysore, it was considered necessary to have a uniform law for planned growth of land use and development and for the making and execution of town planning schemes. Therefore, the State Legislature enacted the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, `the Town Planning Act'). The objectives of that Act were :
(i) to create conditions favourable for planning and replanning of the urban and rural areas in the State of Mysore, with a view to providing full civic and social amenities for the people in the State;
(ii) to stop uncontrolled development of land due to land speculation and profiteering in land;
(iii) to preserve and improve existing recreational facilities and other amenities contributing towards balanced use of land; and
(iv) to direct the future growth of populated areas in the State, with a view to ensuring desirable standards of environmental health and hygiene, and creating facilities for the orderly growth of industry and commerce, thereby promoting general standards of living in the State.
3. The State of Mysore was renamed Karnataka in 1973. Thereupon, necessary consequential changes were made in the nomenclature of various enactments including the Town Planning Act.
4. Section 4 of the Town Planning Act envisages constitution of a State Town Planning Board by the State Government. By Act No.14 of 1964, the Town Planning Act was amended and Chapter I-A comprising of Sections 4-A to 4-H was inserted. These provisions enabled the State Government to issue notification and declare any area in the State to be a local planning area for the purposes of the Act and constitute the "Planning Authority" having jurisdiction over that area. Section 9(1) (unamended) imposed a duty on every Planning Authority to carry out a survey of the area within its jurisdiction, prepare and publish an outline development plan for such area and submit the same to the State Government for provisional approval. In terms of Section 12(1) (unamended), an outline development plan was required to indicate the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area was to be carried out and regulated. Section 19(1), as it then stood, contemplated preparation of a comprehensive development plan and submission of the same for the approval of the State Government. Section 21 (unamended) gave an indication of the factors which were to be included in the comprehensive development plan. Section 26 (unamended) imposed a duty on every Planning Authority to prepare town planning schemes incorporating therein the contents specified in sub-section (1) of that Section. For the sake of reference, these provisions are extracted below :
"4-A. Declaration of Local Planning Areas, their amalgamation, sub-division, inclusion of any area in a Local Planning Area. –
(1) The State Government may, by notification, declare any area in the State to be a Local Planning Area for the purposes of this Act, this Act shall apply to such area: Provided that no military cantonment or part of a military cantonment shall be included in any such area.
4-C. Constitution of Planning Authority. –
(1) As soon as may be, after declaration of a local planning area, the State Government in consultation with the Board, may, by notification in t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
