1982 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.3386 and 3387 of 1981 S. Cooper, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, S.S. Shroff and Mrs. Kiran Chaudhary for the Appellants.
The Division Bench companymenced hearing the writ petitions on 16.3.82 and on 22.3.82 a further companytention was raised by the appellants that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations were never published, companysequently they have never become effective and, therefore, there was numberneed for any companypliance with the requirements of the plan and the regulations.
2780 81 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.
2780 of 1982 from raising further companystruc tion.
We are number greeted with tail puffing 1062 chimneys and monstrous high rise buildings, both designed to hurt the eye, the environment and the man.
Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan.
However, in the special leave petition filed by 1065 the appellants the order of the learned Single Judge was restored subject to an undertaking given by the appellants that in the event of the original writ petition being al lowed and the companystruction being required to be pulled down, the appellants will number raise any objection and will number plead the companystruction during the pendency of the writ petition as a defence to the pulling down of the companystruc tion.
Raj Mahal Vilas Extension is a sparsely developed area of the city of Bangalore which the Bangalore Improvement Trust Board desired to develop under the provisions of the city of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945.
Veerappa, A.K. Sharma, K.N. Singh, S.S. JavaIi, G.P. Shivaprakash and B.P. Singh for the Respondents.
Writ Petition No.
It was further urged that the Regulations were distinct from the Outline Development Plan and that in the case of the Regulations, there was numberattempt whatever at publication.
There was also a prayer to require the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission to recommend to the State of Karnataka against the companystruction of high rise buildings in any of the existing extensions of Bangalore.
The Board prepared an Outline Development Plan For short, O.D.P. In February 1963 the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 came into force with effect from January 15, 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Bangalore was a beautiful city once.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
2781 of 1982 were filed on 25.2.81.
The present appellants as well as the petitioners before the High Court were all of them allottees 1064 from the Improvement Trust Board.
Land was acquired and plots were allotted to several people.
Dated, 27th June 1972.
The work was companypleted after the undertaking was given to the Division Bench of the High Court.
The present appellants companytested the writ petitions.
Shri Cooper, learned companynsel for the appellants urged that publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations in the prescribed manner, that is, in the Offi cial Gazette was mandatory under Section 13 4 and that failure to so publish the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffective.
A lay out was prepared and companyditions were imposed for companystruction of houses on the sites.
It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces.
The licences already granted to the appellants companyld number be cancelled or directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline Devel opment Plan and the Regulations.
It was submitted that such defect as there was in the publication of the Plan and the Regulations was effec tively cured by Section 76J and the passage of time.
The writ petitions appeared to have been argued in the first instance before a learned single Judge who after hearing the petitions for some companysiderable time referred them for hearing by a Division Bench.
3387 of 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No.
2780 of 1982 and Writ Petition No.
Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the avenues.
gone are the spaces.
3386 of 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No.
Not number.
That was before the invasion of companycrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high rise and the fast buck.
In Writ Petition No.
3386 of 1981 an interim order was initially refused by a learned Single Judge but on appeal a Division Bench of the High Court granted an interim order restraining the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
