D. N. JEEVARAJ versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 27-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12S.C.R.115 
D. N. JEEVARAJ 
v. 
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA& ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 13785 of 2015) 
NOVEMBER27, 2015 
[MADAN B. LOKUR ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Lease: Allotment of plot to the appellant no. 1 and also 
A 
B 
to appellant no. 1 by BOA - Lease-cum-sale agreement c 
entered by both the appellants with BOA - Application by 
appellants for amalgamation, rejected - Appellants then 
sought sanction of construction of ground/stilt floor and two 
upper floors and started construction which was granted -
Writ petition filed by public interest litigant, based on a news D 
report alleging illegal construction by appellants and praying 
for resumption of plot by authorities- Notices issued by High 
Court - Meanwhile, appellants applied for modification of 
sanctioned building plan, which was granted - High Court 
held that the two plots were amalgamated despite refusal to 
E 
grant permission to do so by the BOA and also that the 
homogenous structure had come up on the amalgamated 
plot and thus there was violation of lease-cum-sale 
agreement- High Court quashed the orders sanctioning the 
building construction plans in favour of the appellants and F 
,directed the BOA to take action against them in terms of 
condition no. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement - On appeal, 
Held: There has been no violation of the lease-cum-sale 
agreement or sanction plan for construction - Corrective G 
measures can always be made by the owner of a building 
until an occupancy certificate or a completion certificate is 
granted - As long as the building conforms t(., the terms of 
the lease-cum-sale agreement and the building regulations 
and bye-laws, no objection can be taken to the construction H 
115 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A - The mere existence of some deviations in the buildings 
does not lead to any definite conclusion that there is either a 
breach or a violation of condition of the lease-cum-sale 
agreement or the building plan. 
B 
. Public interest litigation: Scope of - Held: In issues 
pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be 
somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. 
Administrative law: Exercise of discretion by statutory 
C authority- Judicial review- Scope of, discussed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale 
agreement is breached or violated under three 
D circumstances: (i) If the plot is sub-divided or (ii) If more 
than one building is constructed thereon for the 
purposes of human habitation or (iii) If an apartment 
whether attached to the building or not is used as a shop 
or a warehouse etc. As far as the first circumstance is 
E 
concern~d, there is no allegation that either of the 
appellants have sub-divided their respective plot. The 
allegatiol'.l (though denied) is to the contrary, which is 
that they have amalgamated their plots. Assuming the 
F allegation is substantiated, it can be said at best, that 
they have acted contrary to the letter whereby the prayer 
for amalgamation was rejected but there is no breach or 
violation of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale 
agreement. ·There is no sub-division of the plots and to 
G that extent there is no violation of condition No. 4 of the 
lease-cum-sale agreement. As regards the second and 
third circumstance, it is nobody's case that more than 
one building has been constructed on either of the plots 
~r that the building or any part thereof is used as a shop 
H or warehouse etc. [Paras 22 to 24] [131-C-H; 132-A] 
D. N. JEEVARAJ v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF 
117 
KARNATAKA 
2. The plea of writ petitioner was that after the writ A 
petition was filed, both the appellants made some 
changes and demolished a part of the structure by way 
of damage control so that it appears that there is a 
separate building on each plot. This plea cannot be 
accepted. The writ petition was filed by her at a time B 
when the construction was in progress - in fact, it is still 
not complete. It is true that substantial progress was 
made in the construction but nevertheless the appellants 
could make changes therein until the grant of an 
occupancy certificate by the BBMP. It would be a bit far-
C 
fetched to assume, in a case such as the present, that 
an incomplete structure that can be modified is per se 
contrary to the building bye-laws or the lease-cum-sale 
agreement especially when changes or modifications 0 
could be made therein. Corrective measu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.