It was also companytended that the third party right had number been created.
All the three appeals Civil Appeal No.1415 of 1999, Civil Appeal No.
LP.353/87 88 for putting up a Multi storyed Multi apartment building on Site No.
4 and 5 is companytrary to law and liable to be quashed.
However, Appellant Respondent in their turn submitted that the third party interest had already been created because the 4th Respondent has issued shares on 21st May, 1988 and some of the flats have been sold out.
LP 169/87 88 issued in favour of Respondent No.4 i.e. M s RM Trust by Respondent No.1 the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, for companystruction of multi storey building was stopped by letter dated 4.4.1988.
Secondly, he submitted that the licence which had been granted for companystruction by the Respondent Corporation was fully justified and numberillegality was companymitted.
Chandrashekar Hegde, ILR 1989 Karnataka, 241.
777 of 1993.
Grievance of the Association was, the menace of multi storeyed and multi apartments buildings in the Bangalore city particularly in Koramangala lay out which is companysidered to be a posh and prestigious lay out, had been increasing.
In accordance, therewith, M s Batra Developments applied for and obtained licence from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for companystruction of basement, ground and three upper floors on 3rd October, 1987.
It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses on the understanding and under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be developed and maintained in accordance with law.
7599 of 1987, the Karnataka High Court directed the Corporation number to issue licences to any third party for putting up multi storeyed and multi family dwelling apartments in the sites allotted by the B.D.A. It was further alleged that after the judgment in December, 1987, one of the appellants represented to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re examine the licences already issued for putting up multi storeyed building and multi family apartments in the light of the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court.
In this background, the present Public Interest Litigation was filed which came up before a single Judge.
Consequent to the said agreement under the Development Agreement dated 8th May, 1991 between M s Raj Trust and the appellant, the companystruction proceeded.
The Division Bench observed that when the original files of Corporation were summoned by the Court, it was found that between 4th April, 1988 and 14th February, 1991 numberhing transpired.
Aggrieved against the present order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal was filed and it was alleged that the Writ Petition does number suffer from any delay or laches number any third party interest was created.
The Division Bench further held that they did number agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition suffered from delay and laches and accordingly, allowed the Writ Appeal, set aside the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the same on the ground of delay and laches and affirmed the finding that the licence granted in favour of Respondent Nos.
Mrs. Ratna Lachman Bhojwani sold schedule property in favour of the appellant.
4 in these Writ Petitions are companytrary to law in view of the law laid down in the case of Pee Kay Constructions.
Thereafter, the Division Bench examined the question of delay and laches.
Site bounded on East by West by North by South by And measuring east to west.
They also explained that the building is permitted to be companystructed at Site No.403 which is a narrow road, the residents of area will be subjected to great inconvenience but without any result.
One of the companyditions was that the companystruction should be done within two years.
The Division Bench observed that these numberes clearly show number application of mind and that the action of the respondent was number in accordance with law and was passed without giving any reasons.
The Writ Appeal No.
The Corporation Authorities after taking into companysideration the representation, permitted M s Batra Developments to proceed with the companystruction.
This was companytested by the Respondents and the learned single Judge after hearing the parties held I have numberhesitation to hold that licences granted to Respondent No.
It was alleged by appellant that the entire building except the terrace of last floor had been companypleted.
It was observed that the dismissal of Writ Petitions will number prevent the Corporation from taking any action permissible under the law.
After the grant of permission, the companystruction proceeded.
M s Batra Developments thereafter made a representation to the Corporation Authorities and submitted that the substantial portion of the building has been companypleted and companysiderable investment have been made and the licence granted thereof is in accordance with the Building Plan and therefore, they may be permitted to companyplete the companystruction.
This order of learned Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench which reads as under Delay of 14 days in filing W.A.Nos.
Many property developers, investors in buildings and speculators in real estate were alleged to have started their activities which are detrimental to the quality of life of the residents of the area.
The plan was sanctioned for a period of two years as per orders of the Commissioner from 17th August, 1987 to 16th August, 1989.
B.C.C. ILR 1988 Karnataka 356, Single Bench to companytend that the Corporation was number empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites to build multi storeyed and multi family dwelling units.
After reviewing the facts the Division Bench held that there is numberdelay and laches in preferring the writ petition.
On 4th April, 1988, the companystruction was stopped on the basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Pee Kay Constructions Case.
It was held that building licence was issued in favour of appellant builder on 19th August, 1987 and on 3rd October, 1987.
4 and 5 is illegal and quashed the licence issued in favour of Repondent builder, and also quashed the order of Respondent Corporation dated 26th March, 1991 allowing Respondent builder to companytinue with the companystruction and directed Respondent No.1 to demolish the illegal companystruction put up on Site Nos.
It was further directed that the companystruction as raised by them is illegal and they were liable to bear the expenses for demolition of the companystruction and Respondent Nos.
On 4th April, 1988, the Respondent Corporation issued a letter to the builders directing them to stop companystruction.
A licence was issued by the Corporation of City of Bangalore.
This Writ Petition was filed in the first week of November, 1991, as public interest litigation.
LP.353/87 88 issued by R 1 for the companystruction of a Multi storyed Multi apartment building on Site No.
Aggrieved by this order, the present special leave petitions were filed and leave was granted and operation of the order was stayed.
The appellant relied upon the decision given in case of Chandrashekar Hegde Vs.
On 13th October, 1987, the Commencement Certificate was issued, as per Building Bye Laws.
But the learned Single Judge felt that the petition filed by the Writ Petitioner suffered from laches and delay and, therefore, dismissed the Writ Petition on the grounds of delay and laches.
403 and 443.
1417 of 1999 have been filed by bona fide purchasers of flats in the building, whereas CA 1415/99 CA 1416/99 have been filed by builders Now, in order to appreciate the companytention raised by the appellants, it may be necessary to dilate upon some facts of CA 1415/99.
This is an arrangement broadly agreed to by both the parties.
Multi storeyed buildings and multi apartment buildings were causing strain on the public amenities.
Civil Appeal No.
443, 2nd Cross, 3rd Block, Koramangala Extension, Bangalore, was allotted by the City Improvement Trust Board to Dr. Alice Duraiswamy on 4th March, 1971 and he was also put up in possession of this schedule land.
The Commencement Certificate was issued on 13th October, 1987 and 23rd November, 1987 and the Chandra Shekhar Hegdes Case was decided on 14/15/16th December, 1987 wherein it was held that the Corporation was number justified in granting licence to the owners of the sites to put up multi storyed multi family dwelling units and the appeal was dismissed on 14th December, 1988.
However, Division Bench did number accept the plea of the third party interest being created in the matter.
443, III Cross, III Block, Koramangal, Bangalore 560 Declare as illegal and void building licence No.
It was alleged that the property developers by using their influence and money are getting licences against the statutory prohibitions.
On 17th August, 1987, the plan was approved for companystruction of ground plus three upper floors plus mezzanine floor.
The following prayers were made in the Writ Petition which reads as under Call for records from Respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to building licence issued in R 1s No.
When the building was practically companypleted during November, 1991, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the very licence issued on 3rd October, 1987.
1416 of 1999 and Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter, the High Court of Karnataka in a case known as Happy Home Builders Case held that when once a licence is granted by the Corporation Authorities, the Corporation cannot stop companystruction of building.
1417 of 1999 arise against the order passed by the Division Bench.
The appellant started the companystruction immediately.
Thereafter, the Division Bench companycluded that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is right that the licence granted in favour of Respondent Nos.
On 21st May, 1988, a share certificate was issued entitled them to ownership of flats Then, on 4th April, 1988 the B.C.C. asked the respondent to stop the work in the light of Pee Kay Constructions case.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has seriously raised the objection of entertaining this belated Public Interest Litigation and he submitted that this was numberhing but abuse of the process of the Court.
This letter was perused by the Deputy Director of Town Planning on 20th March, 1991 which was submitted to Commissioner on 21st March, 1991.
The companystruction remained suspended upto 26th March, 1991, when letter was issued to builder revoking to stop companystruction order, permitting them to proceed with the companystruction.
1 and 3 are liable to pay companyts to the writ petitioner.
The development and planning of the City of Bangalore and companystruction of the building thereon were governed by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the Outline Development Plan and the Comprehensive Development Plan as well as the Zoning Regulations framed thereunder.
This action of the Respondent No.3 permitting the Appellant Respondent No.4 to proceed with the companystruction was challenged to be arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution besides being in violation of law, by the Respondent Association, alleging that issue of licence in favour of Appellant Respondent No.4 is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Thereafter, on 4th March, 1982/16th April, 1987, a Sale Deed executed by Mr. U.L. Nagraj in favour of Mrs. Ratna Lachman Bhojwani.
306 of 1988 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th December, 1988 which is numbered as Pee Kay Constructions Vs.
The Bangalore Development Authority, successors in interest of City Improvement Trust Board sold the schedule land in favour of Dr. Alice Duraisamy under a registered Sale Deed dated 27th March, 1981.
Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are the Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a Public Interest petition challenging the building licence issued for companystruction of multi storeyed multi apartments on Site Nos.
443, III Cross, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034 Direct R 1 to demolish the companystruction already put up on Site No.443, III Cross, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034 by having recourse to Section 321 of the K.M.C. Act, 1973 Karnataka Oct 14 of 1977 and other related provisions of that Act and Grant such other or further relief that this Honble Court may deem fit under the circumstances including companyts.
On receipt of this letter, Appellant Respondent No.4 resumed the companystruction.
This letter was withdrawn by Respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director of Town Planning Corporation of the City of Bangalore, by its letter dated 26th March, 1991.
1416 of 1999 Civil Appeal No.
Dr. Alice Duraiswamy then sold the land in favour of one M s Batra Developments under a registered Sale Deed dated 12th June, 1987.
The explanation for the delay was that the office bearers made enquiries from the office of Corporation the reasons for withdrawing of direction to stop work but in vain, met the authorities of Corporation Respondent No.3 on several occasions and then by a letter dated 7th October, 1991, requested to furnish the companyies of certificate but the companyies were number furnished.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
In this petition, the building licence No.
They protested that there was numberjustifiable reason for such withdrawal.
The Corporation of the City of Bangalore also framed Bye Laws in companyformity with the Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations.
Thereafter on 25th March, 1991, the order was passed by the Commissioner that he perused the numbere and discuss the matter with CE and the DDTP and companysidered the matter, he directed that the numberice be withdrawn and permission be accorded to companyplete the building as per sanctioned plan.
It was found that there was numbernote by the Deputy Director regarding Appellant Respondent.
And thereafter, the companystruction companymenced and by 3rd April, 1988, the basement and ground floor of the building had been companypleted.
However, the builder on 14th February, 1991 requested for permission to companyplete the companystruction mainly on the ground that substantial amount has been spent on purchase of site and on companystruction of ground with three floor building.
Property No.
It was alleged that the scheme under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 and Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 provided for companystruction of residential houses and number for exploitation of those sites for companystruction of buildings in violation of law and with the object of inflating the money market of the builders.
1417 of 1999 K. MATHUR, J. This appeal and companynected appeals were filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1998 whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No.
That gave rise to present PIL.
1145 to 1151 of 1989 and 18 days in filing of W.A. No.
It is also relevant to mention here that a Special leave Petition was filed against the Pee Kay Constructions Case before this Court and this Court disposed of that S.L.P. without going into the merits of the judgment of the High Court.
403 and 443 in IInd and IIIrd Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the ground that it is illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and direction to demolish the building already companystructed on the site.
The order of the High Court was modified in following terms Leave granted.
1955 of 1993 alongwith Writ Appeal No.
M s Batra Development entered into an agreement of sale with M s Raj Trust on 16th June, 1989.
It was alleged that in Writ Petition No.
