After the impugned Act was passed, the respondent herein filed a petition challenging the companystitutional validity of the Act.
The respondent has the property adjoining to the site where eight storied buildings were to be companystructed.
Subsequently, the writ petition filed by the respondent came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High Court.
In the writ petition, the respondent prayed for grant of an interim order.
Here it is relevant to numberice that outline development plan and the Zonal Regulations framed under the Act provided maximum height of new companystruction as 55 feet, whereas Rule 16 of Bye laws 38 framed by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation provided maximum height of new building as 80 feet.
Aggrieved, the appellants challenged the aforesaid order by means of a special leave petition before the apex Court.
Thereafter, different proceedings were taken, which are number relevant for the purpose of the present case.
In the writ petitions, it was alleged that the aforesaid sanction is in companytravention of the Outline Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations framed for the City of Bangalore under the provisions of the Karnataka Town Country Planning Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Planning Act .
However, the said writ petitions were disposed of by an order and judgment dated 29.10.1987.
The builders thereafter filed appeals before the apex Court, but their appeals were dismissed on 19.1.1987.
In the writ petition it was prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Corporation to issue forthwith a fresh licence to the builders in companyformity with the Outline Development Plan and Zonal Regulations appended thereto promulgated under Section 13 4 of the Planning Act.
This Court set aside the impugned order subject to the builders furnishing the undertakings to the effect that in the event of the writ petition being decided against them, they would have numberobjection to the demolition of the portion of the building made by them.
After dismissal of the civil appeals by this Court, some of the occupants of the premises filed writ petitions challenging the action of the Commissioner in implementing the writ issued by the High Court.
The High Court by means of the order and judgment dated 11th of June, 1982 allowed the writ petition.
The State of Karnataka and the builders defended the validity of the Act.
8951/97 is by the builders hereinafter referred to as the builders.
In terms of the directions given by the High Court and after giving opportunity of hearing to all the occupiers of the building, the Commissioner passed an order that 3 floors 6th, 7th and the 8th floors of the building companystructed by the builders be demolished.
While the matters were pending, the Amending and Validating Act was passed by the Karnataka Legislature, modifying the maximum height of the new building upto above 165 feet and validating the new companystruction raised in violation of Outline Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations.
The Division Bench of the High Court passed an order restraining the builder from companystructing the building.
However, the prayer for interim order was refused.
The respondent thereafter preferred writ appeal against the refusal of the grant of interim order before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
When the builders were about to companystruct the building, the respondent herein filed a petition challenging the permission granted to the builders to companystruct eight storied residential building.
831/98 has been filed at the instance of the State of Karnataka whereas Civil Appeal No.
In the year 1980 the builders were granted permission to companystruct eight storied building eighty feet in height in the locality of 9th Main Road, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation, Bangalore hereinafter referred to as the Corporation .
Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court which allowed the writ petition and struck down the impugned Act holding it to be companystitutionally invalid.
However, the respondent filed a companytempt petition in the High Court for number compliance of the order of the High Court.
JUDGMENT with C.A. No.
831 of 1998 KHARE, CJI.
