1. “Bangalore was a beautiful city – once. It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before the invasion of concrete and steel of soot and smoke, of high-rise and the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall puffing chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to modern societal requirements. Smoking chimneys produce much needed goods. High-rise buildings save much scarce space. They have a place in the scheme of things. But where, how, to what extent, at what cost, are the questions raised by some aggrieved citizens of Bangalore. They want congestion to be prevented, population density to be controlled, lung spaces to be provided where people can breathe, existing recreational facilities to be preserved and improved, pollution and health hazards to be removed, civic and social amenities to be provided etc. All these require a balanced use of available land. It is with that object that the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act was enacted in 1961 and it is with the interpretation of some of the provisions of that Act that we are concerned in these appeals.

2. The problem and the pain have been well-brought out by the Chairman of the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission (4th respondent before the High Court) in the Chairman’s response to an editorial in a local newspaper. It is extracted in the Additional statement filed in the High Court by the writ petitioners. He says.-

“When we speak of saving Bangalore’s skyline and its cherished character, we are apt to be misunderstood even by some well-meaning citizens. Vested interests and busy bodies with an easy conscience would in any case rubber wall any consideration of argument because the present time with the skyrocketing property value, is a great opportunity for them to “make hay”. They would rather sell the city than dwell on its future.

We are not speaking only of the central areas of the city – even when we regard them, understandably enough as more precious than the rest of the city. Nor are we trying to guard the City’s supposed “colonial solitude” which, we know, vanished many decades ago. We are not afflicted with irrational nostalgia and have no fetish about bungalows and Courtyards. We are aware of the dynamics of a modern city. All that we want – and it was ably summed up in your editorial is that we must prevent any more ugliness and haphazardness, of which we had more than what Bangalore can take if it is to stay as the City Beautiful, with its planned spaciousness and (still) largely unclustered skyline. We also want without any further delay, a vigilant, clearly spelt out and scrupulously honest system to ensure an orderly growth of the city, in “Keeping with the capacity of its services, like water supply, drainage and roads”. I entirely agree that for new areas we must provide for more density of population if we are to get adequate mileage from per capital expenditure, and if we are to release sufficient lung-spaces for recreational and community activities. In fact, we have long back suggested to city planners to plan for self-contained and self-sufficient clusters of multiple-storey blocks, with their own plazas, shopping and recreational centres, in carefully selected locations and in keeping with the available services.

Again, there is no doubt that coverage per plot must be systematically reduced through imaginatively formulated bye-laws, if we are to continue the garden-city character of the City’s new areas. It is utterly mystifying however, that such obviously valid thoughts and suggestions should end with the plea for “concentrated growth”- presumably i