2018 Supreme(SC) 1175

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY – Appellant
VERSUS
BIRLA SUPER BULK TERMINAL (NOW A UNIT OF ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.)
AND ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9684 OF 2011
Decided On : 27-11-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
KTCP Act and the KIAD Act operate in different fields.
Respondents are liable to pay development charges under KTCP Act.
Self contradictory findings cannot be sustained.
There being no inconsistency or overlapping between the KTCP Act and the KIAD Act, the maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant does not apply.
Issues not raised should not be decided.

Headnote:(a) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Section 14 r/w Section 18 – Planning Authority under KTCP Act entrusted with function of granting licence to put up construction on land – Including the land allotted by the KIAD Board to the allottees under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act – The two Acts operate in different fields – On acquisition of land for industrial purposes under KIAD Act land use does not become ‘use for industrial purpose’ – Does not obviate need for obtaining permission under KTCP Act for change of user. (Para 13, 22, 23)

       (b) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 – Section 18 r/w section 16(C), KIAD Act – Section 16(C) empowering State to exempt from collection of development charges omitted by Act 11 of 1997 – State therefore revoking circular dated 31.12.1990 exempting KIAD from development charges – Held, respondents liable to pay development charges under KTCP Act.

       (Para 24, 27)

       (c) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Self contradictory findings cannot be sustained. (Para 29, 30)

       (d) Interpretation of statute – General and Special Acts – Maxim ‘Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant’ – KIAD Act is an Act to make special provision for securing the establishment of industrial areas – KTCP Act on the other hand enacted to provide for regulation of planned growth of land use and development and for making and execution of town planning schemes – No inconsistency or overlapping between the two enactments – Areas of operation of KIAD Act and KTCP Act being wholly different, held, maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant does not apply. (Para 32)

       (e) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Respondent 1 not challenging authority of Appellant – Only disputing rates – Issue of jurisdiction not having been raised, held, High Court erred in that the role of KTCP is only to scrutinise the application to ensure that the plan is in conformity with the provisions of the KTCP Act and that it cannot levy the fee. (Para 34)

       Facts of the case:

       The State Government issued Notification declaring the area shown in the Schedule to the said notification as ‘Bangalore International Airport Planning Area’ w.e.f. 12.01.1996. On the same day, the State Government issued another Notification constituting the appellant as the Planning Authority for the said local planning area. The State Government by Notification added some other villages including the villages in question in Doddaballapur Taluk in the planning area of the appellant.

       Respondent No.1 approached the State Government to approve a project to establish the Cement Terminal near Bangalore which was approved by the Single Window Agency. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), issued a Notification declaring some areas as industrial areas. Respondent No.1 was allotted lands by KIADB and respondent No.1 took possession thereof.

       Respondent No.1 applied to Appellant authority seeking permission for construction of Bulk Cement Terminal. The Appellant inspected the spot along with KIADB Special Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Planning Director and Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner. R-1 was informed by the Appellant that it was decided to approve the development plan as per Rules. The Appellant also informed Respondent No.1 to pay betterment charges @ Rs. 75 per sq. mtr., inspection charges @ Rs. 150 per hectare, building construction charges, penalty @ Rs. 150 per hectare and road charges @ Rs. 1 lakh per acre totalling Rs.1,48,29,173/-pertaining to the sanctioning of the Development Plan consisting of the plans of storage, packing and administrative-office buildings.

       Appellant issued notice stating that every development has to be proceeded only after getting necessary Commencement Certificate from the Appellant. It was stated in the notice that records reveal that no permission has been obtained as required under the provisions of KTCP Act. KTCP asked respondent No. 1 to stop work and discontinue use of the property and to show cause as to why action should not be taken to remove or pull down the work and to restore the land to its original condition.

       Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petitions challenging the said notices contending that the appellant has no authority to demand any development charges since the lands in the question were allotted in favour of Respondent No.1 by the KIADB, under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.

       The Division Bench reversed the decision of the Single Judge..

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erred in that the role of KTCP is only to scrutinise the application to ensure that the plan is in conformity with the provisions of the KTCP Act and that it cannot levy the fee.

       Result: Appeal allowed.