Back
1987 Supreme(Kar) 347
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Rama Jois,Ramakrishna
MAHADEVA - Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondent
W. P. 15009 Of 1987
Decided On : 11/06/1987
Advocates Appeared :
H.B.DATAR, H.N.Narayan, N.K.Gupta, R.C.Castelino, R.GURURAJAN, S.VIJAYASHANKAR
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the 5th respondent cannot occupy the additional floors of the building as they were constructed in breach of an undertaking given before the court and without a license. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and the authority of court orders.
Headnote:
The court referred to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. Section 310 of the Municipal Corporations Act was particularly relevant, as it required every person to obtain permission from the Commissioner before occupying a newly constructed building or part thereof. The court found that the 5th respondent had not obtained permission to occupy the additional floors, which was a violation of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The 5th respondent was attempting to occupy additional floors of a commercial complex called 'sangeeta' which were directed to be demolished by an order of the court. The floors were built in breach of an undertaking given before the court and without a license from the corporation of the City of Bangalore. The buildings were also in contravention of the Comprehensive Development Plan promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional floors were constructed in breach of the undertaking given before the court and without a license. The construction was also in violation of the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations. The court held that the 5th respondent should not be allowed to occupy the additional floors as it would undermine the rule of law and the authority of the court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ordered the Corporation to close the entrance to the additional floors and directed the Karnataka Electricity Board not to supply electricity to those floors. The court also stated that the 5th respondent must seek permission from the Corporation before occupying the additional floors, in accordance with Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.
Result: The court allowed the writ petition in part, only in relation to the additional floors of the building. The court ordered the Corporation to close the entrance to the additional floors and directed the Karnataka Electricity Board not to supply electricity to those floors. The court also set a date for the order to be implemented, after which the 5th respondent would need to seek permission for occupation in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THIS public interest Petition is presented on the allegation that the 5th respondent was attempting to occupy the additional floors of a commercial complex called 'sangeeta' which are directed to be demolished by an order of this Court as they were built in breach of an undertaking given before this Court by the 5th respondent and without license from the corporation of the City of Bangalore and in plain contravention of the Comprehensive development Plan promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planing Act, and therefore the 5th respondent should be restrained from occupying that portion of the building.
( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, it is necessary to set out the history of the case.
( 3 ) THERE are two commercial multistoreyed buildings called 'rajatha' and 'sangeetha' which have been constructed by Rajatha Enterprises and Vinayaka Investments the 5th respondent, respectively. 'rajatha' is notorious for having been constructed even when an interim injunction issued by this Court in a public interest petition restraining the builder of that building from constructing the building, was in force (See: S. K. Sharma -v.- The Corporation of the Bangalore) ILR1986 KAR 2536. 'sangeeta' is notorious for its 4th and 5th floors having been constructed in breach of the undertaking not to construct them, given by the 5th respondent before this Court in a public interest petition challenging the legality of the license given for construction of basement plus ground and three floors, without license and in contravention of the Comprehensive Development Plan ('odp' for short) framed under the Act. (See: K. K. Govindaraju -v.- Commissioner of the Corporation) ILR1987 KAR 1570. The buildings have been constructed at Chickpet, Bangalore, which happens to be the hub of business activity and the buildings constructed in that locality have the potential of earning huge amounts in the form of Pagdi, advances and rents.
( 4 ) THERE were public interest petitions questioning the legality of the license issued by the corporation in respect of both these buildings. The petition relating to 'rajatha' was by S. K. Sharma1. It was allowed by us following the earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in m. D. Narayan v.- State of Karnataka 1982-2 Kar. L. J. S. N. Item 35. This Judgment has been confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B. K. Srinivasan -v.- State of Karnataka ilr 1987 KAR 1867 decided on 19-1-87. The special leave sought for to appeal against the above Judgment has not been granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to which we shall refer later.
( 5 ) FOLLOWING the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivasan's case AIR1987 SC 1059 , JT1987 (1 )SC 180 , 1987 (1 )SCALE142 , (1987 )1 SCC658 , [1987 ]1 scr1054 , 1987 (1 ) UJ657 (SC ), we held in Govindaraju's case2 regarding 'sangeeta' that there should be an order similar to the one made in S. K. Sharma's case1. Paragraph 15 of the Judgment reads :
''15. In the result, we hold that these three petitions are entitled to succeed and we should make an order on lines similar to the one made in S. K. Sharma's case. "
Accordingly, we made the following order in three public interest petitions against 'sangeeta'.
"in W P. Nos. 7628 to 7630/1986. 2 (i) Rule made absolute (ii) The Writ Petitions are allowed (iii) A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall issue to respondent No, 1 to decide after issuing notice to respondent-3, the actual extent of violation of the Outline Development Plan and the zoning Regulations promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the Licence L. P. No. 2611/80-81 dated 25-10-1980 and/or construction of the building on premises bearing No. 771 to 774, O. T. C Road, Chickpet Bangalore, and after considering the reply, if any, furnished by respondent No. 3 and if the finding were to be that there has been such violation of Zoning Regulations as would call for demolition of any por
