BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus THE AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 24-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 881 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
THE AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY 
LTD. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7503-7537 of 2002) 
JANUARY 24, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) 
B 
Town Planning - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 
1976 - s.32(5A) - In terms of s.32(5A), the Bangalore C 
Development Authority (BOA) has been vested with the power 
to call upon the applicants desirous of forming new 
extensions or layouts or private streets to pay a specified sum 
in addition to the sums referred to in s.32(5) to meet a portion 
of the expenditure incurred for the execution of any scheme D 
or work for augmenting water supply, electricity, roads, 
transportation and other amenities within the Bangalore 
Metropolitan area - Whether s.32(5A) is violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution - Held: A statutory provision is presumed 
to be constitutionally valid unless proved otherwise and E 
burden lies upon the person who alleges discrimination to lay 
strong factual foundation to prove that the provision offends 
the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution - Though the 
respondents pleaded that s.32(5A) is discriminatory, no 
factual foundation was laid in support of this plea and in the 
F 
absence of such foundation - While examining the issue of 
hostile discrimination in the context of s.32(5A), the Court 
cannot be oblivious of the fact that due to unprecedented 
increase in the population of the Bangalore City and the policy 
decision taken by the State Government to encourage house G 
building societies to form private layouts, the BOA was obliged 
to take effective measures to improve civic amenities like 
water supply, electricity, roads, transportation, etc. within the 
Bangalore Metropolitan Area and for this it became 
881 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A necessary to augment the resources by the BOA itself or 
through other State agencies/instrumentalities by making 
suitable contribution - However, the fact of the matter is that 
with a view to cater to the new areas, and for making the 
concept of planned development a reality qua the layouts of 
B the private House Building Societies and those involved in 
execution of large housing projects, etc., the BOA and other 
agencies! instrumentalities of the State incurred substantial 
expenditure for augmenting the water supply, electricity, etc. 
- There could be no justification to transfer the burden of this 
c expenditure on the residents of the areas which were already 
part of the city of Bangalore - In other words, other residents 
could not be called upon to share the burden of cost of the 
amenities largely meant for newly developed areas -
Therefore, it is not possible to approve the view taken by the 
0 
High Court that by restricting the scope of loading the burden 
of expenses to the allottees of the sites in the layouts 
developed after 1987, the legislature violated Article 14 of the 
Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
Town Planning - Bangalore Development Authority Act, 
E 1976 - s.32(5A) - Challenge to, on the ground of excessive 
delegation - Whether s. 32(5A) suffers from the vice of 
excessive delegation of legislative power - Held: While 
examining challenge to the constitutionality of a statutory 
provision on the ground of excessive delegation, the Court 
F must look into the policy underlying the particular legislation 
and this can be done by making a reference to the Preamble, 
the objects sought to be achieved by the particular legislation 
and the scheme thereof and that the Court would not sit over 
the wisdom of the legislature and nullify the provisions under 
G which the power to implement the particular provision is 
conferred upon the executive authorities - The policy 
underlying the 1976 Act is clearly discernible from the 
Preamble of the 1961 Act and the 1976 Act and the objects 
sought to be achieved by the two legislations, namely, 
H development of the City of Bangalore and areas adjacent 
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. AIR CRAFT 883 
EMPLOYEES COOP. SOCIETY LTD. 
thereto - It cannot be said s. 32(5A) confers unbridled and 
A 
uncanalised power upon the BOA to demand an unspecified 
amount from those desirous of forming private layouts - The 
exercise of power by the BOA u/s.32(5A) is always subject to 
directions which can be given by the State Government u/s. 65 
of the 1976 Act - s.32(5A) does not suffer from the vice of B

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