BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY & ANR. versus NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ORS.
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 782, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
work and restore the land
to its original condition or, as the case may be, take any measure
to stop such use.
(5) Any expenses incurred by the Planning Authority under
sub-section (4) shall be a sum due to such Authority under this
Act from the person in default or from the owner of the land.
Explanation. -The power to grant necessary permission under this
section for a change of user of land shall include the power to
grant permission for the retention on land of any building or work
constructed or carried out thereon before the date of the
publication of the declaration of intention to prepare an outline
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
development plan under sub-section (1) of section 10 or for the
continuance of any use of land instituted before the said date.
(6) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning
Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(4) may, within thirty days from the date of such decision, appeal
to such authority as may be prescribed.
(7) The prescribed authority may, after giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the Planning
Authority, pass such orders as it deems fit, as far as may be,
within four months from the date of receipt of the appeal.”
(emphasis supplied)
We are not impressed by this submission. The reported decision
pressed into service does not go to the extent of justifying the direction
issued by the High Court vide impugned judgment to issue
Commencement Certificate. Indisputably, the question of issuing
Commencement Certificate would arise only if the Planning Authority
was fully satisfied that the proposal/plan submitted by the Project
Proponents is compliant in all respects in reference to the extant town
planning rules and regulations. Moreso, because it is not a case where
the Project Proponents were invoking the provision regarding deemed
approval of the modified plan submitted on 5.5.2012.
66. As a result, we have no hesitation in taking view that the
direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment, in any
case, cannot be countenanced in law.  But this question, if  we may
say so, has become
academic for the view that we have already taken
that the Project Proponents could not have directly approached the
Planning Authority for approval of modified proposal, which was replete
with deviations from the stipulations and specifications in the FWA read
with the PTR. This is so because the right in favour of the Project
Proponents to carry on development work on the lands referred to in
the FWA and the PTR would enure only in conformity with the
stipulations and specifications in the stated documents. It is not open
to the Project Proponents to develop the land in any other manner, unless
permitted by the State.
67. Taking overall view of the matter, we have no hesitation in
allowing the present appeals filed by the Planning Authority and the
BANGALORE MYSORE INFRA CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTH. v.
NANDI INFRA CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LTD. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
State of Karnataka and thereby setting aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court with liberty to the Project Proponents to first
approach the State (under Article 7 of the FWA) for its prior permission
to allow them to deviate from the stipulations and specifications in the
FWA and the PTR. Upon consideration of such proposal, the competent
authority of the State may take appropriate decision in the matter and
if need be, obtain prior opinion of the Empowered Committee. However,
this process must be completed in right earnest and no later than six
months from the date of submission of the proposal to the competent
authority of the State. If the decision is adverse to the Project
Proponents, it would be open to them to take recourse to the disputes
resolution mechanism in terms of Article 18 of the FWA, if so advised.
Only after prior permission is granted by the State regarding the
proposed deviations, the Project Proponents may then apply to the
Planning Authority for permission to construct buildings/structures as
per the applicable town planning regulations, which be considered on
its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by its earlier
communication dated 7.2.2015.
68. We leave all other contentions available to concerned parties
open to be considered by the concerned forum/Court on their own merits
in accordance with law.
69. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and
set aside and
the stated writ petitions filed by the Project Proponents
stand dismissed with liberty to the Project Proponents, as aforesaid. The
appeals are allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to
costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeals allowed.