Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority & Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2128 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 326-338 of 2020) With Civil Appeal Nos. 2129-2141 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP(C) Nos. 3166-3178 of 2020)
Decided on : 19-05-2020
For the Appellant :Shailesh Madiyal, Shubhranshu Padhi Advocates
For the Respondent:E. C. Agrawala Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report, Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Writ petition dismissed - High Court quashed communication rejecting application for group housing, stating it is contrary to FWA - The FWA mandates development in specified zones, and deviations require prior approval from the State. (Paras 3, 7, 63, 67)
(B) Public Law - The court reiterated that contractual obligations under the FWA must be adhered to, with no unilateral deviations permitted by project proponents. (Paras 3, 63)
Facts of the case:
The appeals stem from a High Court order quashing a communication from the Planning Authority rejecting a proposal for developing a group housing scheme by project proponents, stating grounds for approval were inadequate. (Paras 7, 22)
Findings of Court:
The court found the project proponents cannot circumvent the requirements of the FWA, emphasizing that any changes must be approved by the State first. (Paras 3, 4, 67)
Issues: Whether the project proponents can develop housing projects outside the demarcated township areas in contravention of the FWA and PTR. (Paras 22, 63)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the project must comply with the stipulations in the Framework Agreement and Town Planning regulations, necessitating prior approval for deviations by the State or a designated Empowered Committee. (Paras 67)
Result: Appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside with directions. (Para 68)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the litigation background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and compliance with agreements. (Para 15 , 17 , 25 , 26 , 31 , 36 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 60) |
| 3. interpretation of the governing documents and obligations. (Para 18 , 19 , 24 , 34 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 68) |
| 4. arguments regarding authority and appropriateness of approvals. (Para 22 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 33) |
| 5. final conclusion on the obligations of the project proponents. (Para 63 , 69) |
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
These appeals filed by Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority [For short, "the Planning Authority"] and the State of Karnataka [For short, "the State"] are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru [For short, "the High Court"] in Writ Petition Nos. 16576-16577/2015 and 18481-18491/2015 (GM-RES), whereby the High Court quashed the communication bearing No. BMICAPA/339/Praa.Pra.Pa./1541/2011-12 dated 7.2.2015 issued by the Planning Authority rejecting the application made by the respondent No. 1 - Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited [For short, "NICE"] and respondent No. 2 Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited [For short, "NECE"] [NICE and NECE are jointly referred to as "the Project Proponents", for short], dated 5.5.2012, for permission to develop a group housing scheme under the Framework Agreement dated 3.4.1997 [For short, "the FWA] in different survey numbers at Kommagatta village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (at interchanges 5/7 of peripheral road) covering 42 acres 30 guntas of land. The High Court additionally directed the Planning Authority to issue Commencement Certificate to the Project Proponents in terms of application dated 5.5.2012, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the High Court's order."
2. This is the fifth round of litigation pertaining to the Integrated Infrastructure Corridor and Finance Project [For short, "the IICFP" or "the Project"] situated between Bangalore and Mysore, Karnataka, consisting of residential, industrial and commercial facilities, such as, among other things, self-sustaining Townships, expressways, utilities and amenities including power plants, industrial plants, water treatment plants and other infrastructural developments, as more specifically described in the Infrastructure Corridor Project Technical Report [For short, "the PTR] dated August, 1995, as amended."
3. The first round of litigation was in the form of a public interest litigation filed by H.T. Somashekar Reddy before the High Court, questioning the requirement of land for the Project as per the FWA for development of industrial infrastructure facilities (residential, commercial, industrial etc.) and to quash the FWA besides directing an enquiry to be conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation [For short, "the CBI"]. That challenge was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment and order dated 21.9.1998 in Writ Petition No. 29221/1997 Reported as H.T. Somashekar Reddy vs. Government of Karnataka & Anr, 1998 SCC Online Kar 609 and which decision came to be affirmed by this Court on 26.3.1999 in SLP(C) No. 4922/1999, dismissing the said special leave petition in limine.
4. The second round of litigation was at the instance of J.C. Madhuswamy and Srirama Reddy, again a public interest litigation to question the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State for implementation of the Project. The main grouse in this petition was about excess land being acquired for real estate purpose near Bangalore at interchange areas to pass on the benefit to the Project Proponents and illegal sale of land for construction of Bangalore Exhibition Centre. The group of writ petitions raising aforementioned challenge being Writ Petition Nos. 45334/20
