IMPORTANT POINTS
Lease agreement should be properly construed to determine whether a party to it has breached its terms and conditions.
Procedural technicalities should not be insisted in PIL.
PIL should not be entertained in matters not being of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organization or individual.

Headnote:(a) Town planning – Lease-cum-sale agreement by Development Authority – Condition No. 4 – Allegation of violation of Lease agreement on ground of amalgamation of two plots allotted to the two appellants – Condition no. 4 prohibiting subdivision a plot and not amalgamation – Amalgamation will not be violative of lease agreement – High Court, in absence of any case for subdivision of plot erred in concluding violation of the agreement. (Para 23)
       (b) Town planning – Lease-cum-sale agreement – Building bye-laws – Appellants taking corrective measures during construction of their buildings – Modifying the construction which was permissible – Not improper. (Para 26)
       (c) Town planning – Lease-cum-sale agreement – Condition no. 4 only requires that the building shall be for residential purposes – Multistoried buildings not prohibited as long as lease agreement is not breached – BDA specifically stating no breach of lease agreement – Moreover unless and until construction of the building is complete it cannot be said with certainty whether there had been deviation with building plan or lease agreement – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 28, 29)
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Public Interest Litigation – Courts should be liberal in entertaining public interest litigation, not insisting on procedural technicalities – However, PIL should not be entertained in matters not being of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organization or individual – In cases not strictly falling under the category of PIL the litigant should be asked to avail of other remedies. (Para 36, 37, 39)
       (2005) 3 SCC 91; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504; (2004) 2 SCC 150; (1974) 2 SCC 630 – Relied upon
       (e) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Discretion – Statutory authority should be permitted to exercise discretion available to them – Instantly Clause 10 of lease agreement giving discretion to BDA to take action against the lessee in given circumstances – High Court virtually taking over function of BDA and exercising its discretion by directing it to take action against appellants – Decision cannot be upheld more so when no reason had been given for arriving at the conclusion – High Court, held, acted beyond jurisdiction (Para 41, 43)
       (1997) 7 SCC 622 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Sadananda Gowda was allotted plot No. 2-B in HSR layout, Sector-3, Bangalore measuring 50 ft x 80 ft. on 30th August, 2006.
       The BDA executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of Sadananda Gowda on 2nd February, 2007 and on the same day handed over possession of the plot to him.
       Jeevaraj was also allotted a plot by the BDA. Subsequently and on his request, the allotment was changed to plot no. 13-B in HSR layout, Sector-3, Bangalore. The area of Jeevaraj’s plot is also 50 ft. x 80 ft. and it is adjacent to the plot allotted to Sadananda Gowda. Jeevaraj too completed all necessary administrative formalities and was handed over possession of the plot on 24th November, 2008.
       On 4th June, 2009 both Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj moved an application before the BDA to amalgamate their plots. The request was rejected by the BDA.
       Thereafter, both Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj made separate applications for sanction of a building plan to the BBMP. The building plans were for the construction of a ground/stilt floor and two upper floors. The plans were considered by the BBMP and sanctioned on 22nd July, 2010.
       One Nagalaxmi Bai filed a Writ Petition in the Karnataka High Court wherein a prayer was made for a declaration that the building being constructed on the plots above mentioned having been allotted to Sadananda Gowda by the BDA is an illegally constructed building and that the BDA ought to resume the site along with the building and forfeit any amount paid in this behalf by Sadananda Gowda.
       In the meanwhile, on applications by Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj for modification of the sanctioned building plan, sanction was granted for the construction of a basement, ground floor and three upper floors on each plot. The modified building plan was further modified on the request of Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj and construction was permitted by the BBMP for a building having a basement, ground floor and three upper floors entirely for residential purposes.
       The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Nagalaxmi Bai.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted in both petitions.

2. The question for consideration is whether the appellants (Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj) have per se violated the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement that they have individually entered into with the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’) by constructing a multi-storeyed residential building on the plots allotted to them. The alternative question is whether the construction made by them is contrary to the plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’) and thereby violated the lease-cum-sale agreement with the BDA. The term of the lease-cum-sale agreement alleged to have been violated is clause 4 which reads as follows:

“4. The Lessee/Purchaser shall not sub-divide the property or construct more than one dwelling house in it.

The expression ‘dwelling house’ means building constructed to be used wholly for human habitation and shall not include any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not, used as a shop or a building of warehouse or building in which manufactory operations are conducted by mechanical power or otherwise.

(a) The Lessee shall plant at least two trees in the site leased to him.”

3. In our opinion, both the questions are required to be answered in the negative. There has been no violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement or the sanction plan for construction such as to violate the lease-cum-sale agreement with the BDA.

The facts

4. On or about 5th March, 2002 Sadananda Gowda (the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly in Karnataka) addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of Karnataka requesting for allotment of a plot from the Bangalore Development Authority. This request was favourably considered and he was allotted plot No. 2-B in HSR layout, Sector-3, Bangalore measuring 50 ft x 80 ft. on 30th August, 2006 in terms of the Bangalore Development Authority (Site Allotment) Rules, 2006 [Learned counsel for Nagalaxmi Bai mentioned that the discretionary allotment was not warranted but that was not pressed nor is it an issue before us.]. In accordance with the required formalities, Sadananda Gowda executed an affidavit on 1st September, 2006 in the form of an undertaking with the BDA in which it was stated as follows:-

“4. In the event that any false statements or declarations furnished and sworn to and declared in this Affidavit and in the event that I violate any conditions of site allotment, the Authorities are empowered to resume such building and site without granting any compensation to me and BDA is entitled to and empowered to resume the site for which BDA is authorized and I hereby declare so and I hereby swear accordingly.”

Pursuant to the execution of the affidavit and completion of all necessary administrative formalities, the BDA executed a lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of Sadananda Gowda on 2nd February, 2007 and on the same day handed over possession of the plot to him.

5. As far as Jeevaraj is concerned, he too made a request on or about 14th September, 2004 for the allotment of a plot to the Chief Minister of Karnataka and was allotted a plot by the BDA.

Subsequently and on his request, the allotment was changed to plot no. 13-B in HSR layout, Sector-3, Bangalore on 30th October, 2008. The area of Jeevaraj’s plot is also 50 ft. x 80 ft. and it is adjacent to the plot allotted to Sadananda Gowda. Jeevaraj too completed all necessary administrative formalities and was handed over possession of the plot on 24th November, 2008.

6. On 4th June, 2009 both Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj moved an application before the BDA to amalgamate their plots. The request was rejected by the BDA and communicated to them on 24th September, 2009 and there is no dispute or doubt with regard to the validity of the reasons for turning down the proposal for amalgamation.

7. Thereafter, both Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj made separate applications for sanction of a bui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1077

Cases Referred (5)