H. KASHINATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 21-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~-
..... 
A 
H. KASHINATH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 1995 
B 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976/Karnataka Town and 
·-r-
Country Planning Act, 1961/Corporation of City of Bangalore Building Bye-
laws, 1983: 
c 
Sections 2(bb)(iv), 38A/Section 23/Schedule-l, Paragraph 1.2.7- Cor-
poration of City of Bangalore-Comprehensive Development Plart--Land use 
and occupancies-Classification-Public and semi-public uses-'Civic 
amenity'-Land eannarked for public or semi public uses-Grant of lease to 
D 
a society for building a theatre for purposes of development of drama and 
films and to impart training to film artists-Held, lease is in violation of . 
pwpose for which site has been eannarked-Activities aimed at imparting 
training and promoting welfare of film artists are not educational, social or 
cultural activities. 
E 
Words and Phrases : 
'Civic amenity'-Section 2 (bb) of Bangalore Development Auth01ity 
Act, 1976-Meaning of. 
'Public or semi-public uses'-City Corporation of Bombay Building 
F 
Bye-law, 1983, Schedule I, paragraph 1.2.7-Explained. 
'\ 
Respondent No. 4, a Society registered under the Karnataka 
Societies Registration Act, 1960 and formed to promote the interests of 
Karnataka film artists, was allotted the land in dispute by the Corporation 
G 
of the City of Bangalore, on a lease for the purpose of building a theatre 
for the development of drama and films and to impart training to artists. 
The Government of Karnataka approved the lease for a period of 50 years 
on an annual lease rent of Rs. 500. In the comprehensive Development Plan · 
r-
framed under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and 
published under section 23 thereof, the land in dispute was earmarked for 
H a public o .. semi-public purpose or for a civic amenity. The appellants filed. 
834 
1 
. 
H. KASHINATH v. STATE 
835 
a public interest writ petition before the High Court challenging the A 
allotment on the ground that granting of lease was not for the purpose for 
which the site was earmarked in the Plan. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The lease in favour of respondent No. 4 is in violation 
of the purpose for which the site has been earmarked, as the plot is 
reserved under the comprehensive Development Plan for a public or 
semi-public purpose. [837-D] 
1.2. The allotment of the plot to respondent No. 4 cannot be said to 
B 
c 
be an allotment of kind for a public or semi-public use as described in 
paragraph 1.2.7 of Schedule I to the Building Bye-law, 1983 framed by the 
Corpo~tion of the City of Bangalore. Respondent No. 4 is not an educa-
tional cultural or religious institution what is being constructed by it is a D 
theatre to train artists and to stage plays or show films in the connection 
along with a school for training artists. It does not seem that the theatre 
would be open to the public at a nominal cost, or that respondent No. 4 
will not make profits out of running the theatre of hiring it out to other 
organisations of individuals. In fact, one of the avowed aims of respondent E 
No. 4 is to earn income which can be utilised for the objects of the 
Association, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the allotment of 
this plot is for a public or semi-public purpose. It is purely for the benefit 
of respondent No. 4. [839-E-H; C] 
1.3. Respondent No. 4 is essentially a society to promote the interests 
of its members who are film artists. The activities of respondent No. 4 
would not fall under any of the categories of 'civic' amenity' mentioned in 
section 2(bb)(iv) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 which 
deals with a centre for educational, religious, social or cultural activities 
F 
or for philanthropic service run, inter alia by a society re~istered under the G 
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. On the other hand, under 
section 38-A of 1976 Act, there is a prohibition against selling or otherwise 
disposing of any area reserved for public parks and play grounds and civic 
amenities for any other purpose; and any disposition so made shall be null 
and void. (838-G; 840-E-F; 841-B] 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
. 
r. 
A 
Lease in favour of the fourth respondent set aside. [842-C] 
t 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal'No. 3367 of 
1995. 
From
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.