2005 (1) TMI 726 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the public interest litigation - delay in filing - lease-cum-sale agreement - Challenged the Validity of building licence issued for construction of multi-storeyed/multi-apartments and direction to demolish the building already constructed on the site - permission granted by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation to the appellant for raising the construction up to third floor - violation of any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that delay in this case is equally fatal, the construction already started by the appellant in 1987 and building had come up to three floors. Thereafter it was stopped in 1988 and in March, 1991 it resumed after permission was granted. The Writ Petition was filed in November, 1991 meanwhile almost construction was complete. Therefore, delay was fatal in the present case and learned single judge rightly held it. It was also brought to our notice that 46 multi storey buildings have come up in this area. Learned counsel has produced photographs to show that buildings more than three and four floors have been constructed in and around this area. However, we are satisfied that there is no prohibition under the provisions of the Act and Rules putting the ceiling on construction of the multi storey building. We are also satisfied that the delay is also fatal in the present case. The sale purchase agreement has its own terms and conditions and the condition as reproduced above, only says that the building to be constructed shall be used wholly for human habitation and shall not include any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not used as a shop or a building or warehouse or used for manufactory operations by mechanical power. Therefore, in this final agreement which has come to be executed and which has been registered the condition is that the building has to be used for human habitation and there is no prohibition contained therein that it cannot raise multi-storeyed building. Once the final agreement is executed then the lessee- purchaser becomes absolute owner of the schedule property and he has to abide by the conditions of the final agreement for sale and other provisions bearing on the subject. The final agreement only contains the condition that the lessee -purchaser should use the schedule property for human dwelling purpose and it will not be used in apartment of that building for purpose of shop or for warehouse or for manufacturing process, therefore, the view taken in Pee Kay Constructions case cannot be said to be a good law. We regret to say that this interpretation does not bear out in the face of the language used in the Clause 2 of the final agreement which says that the building to be constructed shall be used wholly for human habitation and shall not include any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not for shop or warehouse or manufacturing purposes but that does not make out a case for prohibition of raising of the multi-storeyed building. Once the Municipal Corporation has permuted to raise construction more than three floor then this condition for construction will hold good and they are not contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 only says that the Corporation shall exercise power in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Therefore, the Corporation at the time of granting permission has to keep in mind the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. But we have not been able to find any provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act or Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 where any ceiling has been applied on the construction of the multi-storeyed building. Therefore; we do not find that the Municipal Corporation has committed any illegality in granting permission to the appellant for raising construction up to third floor. Thus, we are of opinion that permission granted by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation to the appellant for raising the construction up to third floor is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the appeal. The facts of C.A. are identical. Therefore, this appeal is also allowed for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. C.A, has been filed by persons who have already purchased the flats and they are living in the said flats of the multi-storeyed buildings. Therefore, third party interest has already been created. As such this appeal is also allowed for the reasons mentioned above. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of building licences for multi-storeyed/multi-apartment buildings.
2. Delay and laches in filing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
3. Validity of the PIL and locus standi of the petitioner.
4. Impact of third-party interests.

Summary:

1. Legality of Building Licences:
The Supreme Court examined the legality of building licences issued by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for constructing multi-storeyed/multi-apartment buildings. The appellants argued that the Corporation had no authority to grant such licences under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, and the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had previously upheld this view, referencing the cases of Chandrashekar Hegde v. B.C.C. and Pee Kay Construction v. Chandrashekar Hegde, which held that the Corporation could not issue licences for multi-storeyed buildings.

2. Delay and Laches:
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of delay and laches in filing the PIL. The learned Single Judge initially dismissed the PIL on grounds of delay and laches, noting that the construction had commenced in 1987 and the PIL was filed only in 1991. The Division Bench, however, found no delay or laches, stating that the PIL was filed promptly after the revocation of the stop-work order in March 1991.

3. Validity of the PIL and Locus Standi:
The Court scrutinized the validity of the PIL filed by the Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group. The appellants contended that the PIL was an abuse of process and lacked genuine public interest. The Supreme Court emphasized that PILs should be entertained sparingly and only in cases involving the public interest of a large number of people who cannot afford litigation.

4. Impact of Third-Party Interests:
The Supreme Court considered the impact of third-party interests, noting that several flats had already been sold and occupied by bona fide purchasers. The Division Bench had dismissed the argument of third-party interests, but the Supreme Court found this to be a significant factor, especially since the construction was nearly complete by the time the PIL was filed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeals. The Court held that the building licences issued by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation were not in violation of any provisions of the Act and Rules. The Court also emphasized the importance of considering delay and third-party interests in such cases and reiterated the need for caution in entertaining PILs. The appeals were allowed, and the order for demolition of the buildings was quashed.