LexBANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY versus BIRLA SUPER BULK TERMINAL (NOW A UNIT OF ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD.) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 635
635
BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING
AUTHORITY
v.
BIRLA SUPER BULK TERMINAL (NOW A UNIT OF ULTRA
TECH CEMENT LTD.) AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9684 of 2011)
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961: ss. 14, 15
and 18 – Levy of betterment fee u/s. 18 – Sustainability of – On
facts, appellant constituted as the planning authority for a local
planning area – Respondent No.1 sought permission from the
appellant for construction of Bulk Cement Terminal – Land allotted
by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board-KIADB to
respondent no. 1 – Appellant sought respondent No.1 to pay
betterment charges, building construction charges etc. under the
KTPC Act – Writ petition by respondent no. 1 and 2 that appellant
had no authority to demand any development charges since lands
were allotted in favour of respondent no. 1 by the KIADB – Writ
petition dismissed – In appeal, the Division Bench held that for the
industrial plots allotted by KIADB, the change of land use and the
development thereof comes under the purview of the special
enactment KIAD Act and not under the general law of KTPC Act
and levy of betterment fee u/s. 18 of the KTCP Act is not sustainable
– On appeal, held: The object of KIAD Act is to make special
provisions for securing the establishments of industrial areas in the
State and to generally promote the establishment and orderly
development of the industries whereas the KTCP Act is for regulation
of planned growth of land use and development and for the making
and execution of town planning schemes in the State – Both the
Acts-KIAD Act and KTCP Act operate in different fields and the
maxim Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant is not applicable – There
is nothing in the provisions of the KTCP Act to exclude or exempt
the lands covered by the KIAD Act – Development activities including
the industrial areas fall within the scope of the appellant-Authority
and that the first respondent while obtaining the approval from the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
appellant-Authority for its plan is bound to pay the betterment
charges, road cess and other charges as per the laws – Thus, the
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside –
First respondent to pay the charges to appellant with 6% interest –
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act – Maxims.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 By careful reading of the provisions of both the
Acts, Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961
and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act it is
seen that the object of KIAD Act is to make special provisions
for securing the establishments of industrial areas in the State
and to generally promote the establishment and orderly
development of the industries. On the other hand, KTCP Act is
for regulation of planned growth of land use and development
and for the making and execution of town planning schemes in
the State. Both the Acts i.e. KIAD Act and KTCP Act operate in
different fields. Considering the objects of both the enactments,
there is no merit in the plea of the fifth respondent that once a
land is acquired for the purpose of industries under the KIAD
Act and made over to the Board, the use of the land becomes
‘use for industrial purpose’ and no further permission for change
of use of land by KTCP or any other authority is required.
[Para 22][649-B-D]
1.2 From a combined reading of Section 18 with Section
2(1-c) of KTCP Act, it is clear that the levy of prescribed fee
under Section 18 of the Act is not merely for change of land use
but also for development of land or building. The language of
expression used in Section 18 that “permission for change of land
used…” and “development of land or building..” is to be
interpreted in the light of the object of KTCP Act as enunciated
in the Preamble. [Para 23][649-F-G]
1.3 When the government of Karnataka, Finance
Department and other departments and also the Commissioner
for Industrial Development and other departments have
participated in the said meeting and were all parties to the
decisions as regards the question of levy of fees by KTCP, it is
not open to KIADB to resile from the minutes and put forth claim
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
contrarily. Having been a party to the discussion in the meeting
held on 04.12.1999, the State of Karnataka is also not justified in
contending that the lExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.