BAKHTAWAR TRUST AND ORS. versus M.D. NARAYAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
""1" 
-.. 
BAKHTAWAR TRUST AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M.D. NARAYAN AND ORS. 
MAY 6, 2003. 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 245-Executive action repugnant 
to statuto1y provisions-Validation by legislature-Held, legislature has to 
first remove the very basis of invalidity and then validate the executive action- C 
Declaration by the legislature that judicial pronounceme/1/ given by a court 
of law would not be binding not sufficient. 
Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and 
Validation) Act, 1996-Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1965-
High Court holding construction of building uplo 80 feet was in viola/ion of D 
Zonal Regula/ion framed under /he 1965 A cl-Passing of 1996 Act-1996 Acl 
retrospeclively modifj1ing Zonal Regulations by raising height ofbuildingfi"om 
55ft. lo 165 ft.-Constitutional validity of 1996 Act-Held, 1996 Ac/ is altering 
!he provisions of law 1hus does not negate the effect of the judgment of High 
Court but removes the actual basis upon which the judg111ent was based and 
thereafter validates the action-Hence 1996 Act constitutionally valid- E 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 245. 
Karnataka Town and Count1y Planning Act, 1965-Section 13-Method 
of fra111ing Zonal Regulation providing maxi111u111 height of building to be 
constructed-Passing of 1996 Act-1996 Act substituting existing regulation F 
with statutory Zonal Regulation with retrospective effect-Validity of 1996 
Act-Held, 1996 Act constitutionally valid-There is no need for the legislature 
lo modify the maximum height of a new building in the manner provided in 
Planning Act nor to amend the provisions of Planning Act providing for 
method of fra111ing Zonal Regulations-Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal 
Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 
G 
Statute law: 
Validity-State111ent of object and reasons-Held, a limited reference 
but not reliance could be made to it. 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20031 SUPP. I S.C.R, 
A 
Retrospective amendment-Ejfe.:t of-Held, in such case all actions have 
to proceed on the premise that the law as amended was a/wc~vs in force. 
The Outline Development Plan and the Zo11al Regulations framed 
for the city of Bangalore under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and 
Country Planning Act 1965 provided maximum height of new construction 
B as 55 feet, whereas Rule 16 of Bye-laws 38 provided maximum height of 
new building upto 80 feet. In 1980 State Municipal Corporation granted 
appellants-builders permission to construct eight storied building, eighty 
feet in height. Respondent having property adjoining to the site where 
building were to be constructed filed a writ petition challenging the 
C permission granted. High Court held that licence to construct the building 
upto 80 feet was repugnant to the Zonal Regulations and allowed the writ 
petition. Appellants filed appeals before this Court but the appeals were 
dismissed. Subsequently, Karnataka Legislature passed the Bangalore City 
Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 
modifying the maximum height restriction to 165 feet and validating the 
D ne,, construction raised in violation of Outline Development Plan and 
Zonal Regulation. Respondent then filed petition challenging the 
constitutional validity of the Act. High Court allowed the writ petition and 
struck down the Act holding it to be constitutionally invalid. Hence the 
present appeal. 
E 
Appellants contended that the impugned Act is constitutionally valid 
and the view taken by High Court being erroneous deserves to be set aside. 
Respondent contended that the impugned amendment was 
tantamount to a naked usurpation of judicial power inasmuch as its stated 
F purpose and effect were to nullify the effect of the earlier judgment 
adjudicating the rights between the parties; that a perusal of the Statement 
of Objects and Reasons for the Validation Act shows that the intention of 
the legislature was rather to render the decision of the High Court 
infructuous than to correct any infirmity in the legal position; and that 
the impugned Act though described as an Amendment Act has not 
G amended any provision of the principal Act, inasmuch as Zonal Regulation 
has not been amended in the manner it was provided in the Act and, 
therefore, the Amendment and the Validation Act have not removed the 
basis of the earlier judgment and, therefore, the impugned Act is 
unconstitutional

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.