BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY & ANR. versus NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 19-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
BANGALORE MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR
ENTERPRISE LIMITED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2128/2020)
MAY 19, 2020
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 –
Development of Integrated Infrastructure Corridor and Finance
Project (IICFP) between Bangalore and Mysore, Karnataka,
consisting of residential, industrial and commercial facilities –
Framework Agreement (FWA) executed between State and
respondent no.1, followed by Supplementary agreements and a
Tripartite agreement between the State, respondent nos.1 & 2 (both
jointly called Project Proponents) – Modified development plan
submitted by Project Proponents for permission to set up group
housing scheme at location other than those demarcated for
Townships in the FWA and Infrastructure Corridor Project
Technical Report (PTR) – Eventually, the Planning Authority
rejected the modified plan – High Court quashed the said
communication; directed the Planning Authority to issue
Commencement Certificate to the Project Proponents – Held: PTR
suggested creation of seven Townships but, in the final FWA, only
five Townships were approved – Project Proponents are obliged
to construct the five Townships at the demarcated location(s) only
and to the extent of land specified therefor in the PTR, which
applies proprio vigore to the expression “Townships” in the FWA
– Modified proposal submitted by the Project Proponents for
developing 42 acres 30 guntas of land as group housing scheme
was not for setting up of Township as such – Neither the PTR nor
the FWA envisaged construction of standalone group housing
scheme, that too at a location other than demarcated location(s)
for five Townships – Thus, it was a clear case of deviation from
the stipulations contained therein – To  relax or modify the same,
prior permission of the State was mandatory in terms of Article 7.1,
FWA – No proposal for the same was submitted to the State by the
  [2020] 8 S.C.R. 782
782
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
783
Project Proponents – Further, Project Proponents could not have
directly approached the Planning Authority for approval of
modified proposal replete with deviations – Judgment of High Court
set aside – Project Proponents at liberty to approach the State for
prior permission allowing them to deviate from the stipulations/
specifications in the FWA and the PTR – Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 – Acquiescence/Waiver.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Outline Development Plan (ODP)/Master
Plan was prepared by the Planning Authority for the new planning
area and had received approval of the State. In the backdrop of
the stated agreements, ODP/Master Plan and the amendment
to Zonal Regulations of ODP/Master Plan, the Project
Proponents submitted an application to the Planning Authority
for sanction of group housing scheme in 53 acres 5 guntas of
land, which included lands transferred to the Project Proponents
under sale deeds and notified under Section 28(4) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Later on,
the Project Proponents submitted modified development plan for
permission to set up group housing scheme in 42 acres 30
guntas of land by excluding the lands in respect of which no sale
deed was executed in their favour. The present (fifth) round of
litigation is by the Project Proponents themselves, who had
applied to the Planning Authority for grant of permission for
construction of group housing scheme at the stated location(s).
That permission having been rejected, subject writ petitions
were filed before the High Court, which have been disposed of
by the common judgment and order of the Division Bench. The
High Court posed wrong questions to itself and that led to the
erroneous and untenable conclusion deduced by it. The
fundamental issue is: whether the subject modified plan
submitted by the Project Proponents directly to the Planning
Authority for approval is replete with deviations and/or violation
of the stipulations and specifications in the FWA? In that, the
FWA had circumscribed the user of the land in terms of the
location(s), as well as, the area thereof for implementation of the
Project. If so, was it imperative for the Project Proponents under
the FWA to obtain prior approval of the State including that of
BANGALORE MYSORE INFRA CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTH. v.
NANDI INFRA CORRIDOR E

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