All the above writ petitions are filed by way of public interest litigations.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the above writ petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law.

3. The sum and substance of the prayers sought in all the above writ petitions are to declare the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules 2014; Section 321A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and Section 187A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, as unconstitutional, illegal and ultravires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; The further prayer sought in the writ petitions are to issue writ of mandamus to respondents and its officials restraining them from implementing any of the impugned legislations which are colloquially known as “Akrama Sakrama” Scheme in any manner whatsoever.

4. The writ petitioners challenged the amendment to the respective Acts and Rules on various grounds. The grounds, on which, the constitutional validity of the proposed amendment is challenged, are as under:

(i) The impugned Section 76FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, Section 321-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 187A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Rules for respective Acts, are in gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as they arbitrarily affect the constitutional guarantee of ensuring a decent and planned environment for its citizens. The impugned Sections and Rules are framed in complete disregard to the purpose and objectives of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act whose main objectives are for planned growth and development with a view to improve environmental health and decent standards of living. Impugned Sections and the Rules are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as they place unfettered discretion in the hands of the competent authority for approving regularisation and are in contravention of the important pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts.

(ii) When once the respondent State Government had already enacted a regularisation law in 1991, being the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act 1991, this method of once again providing for regularisation falls foul of the entire thinking behind regularisation. If regularisation is permitted to take place for every 20 years in the State, virtually, every illegal construction can eventually be regularized and thus, the urban planning laws and the master plans would have no meaning. It is clear, in this case, that the respondents have failed to establish a case for permitting violators of the law to go scot free by mere payment of a paltry sum of money termed as ‘fees’ under the impugned Rules.

(iii) The impugned Acts and Rules are in violation of Article 14, as being arbitrary and unreasonable, as no reasons or legal basis is provided for fixing the given penalties for land use and building violations. The sum of money prescribed as fee to regularize the constructions violating the building bye-laws, is extremely low and has been lowered from the fee prescribed in the 2007 Rules, does not have any deterrent effect, as it is very economical for developers to violate the prescribed bye-laws and then regularize by paying the meager fee.

(iv) The impugned Acts and the Rules, if allowed, would amount to dangerous results, especially with regar