PURUSHOTTAM versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 29-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
(2013] 12 S.C.R. 540 
PURUSHOTTA.M 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976: 
c 
s.38-A (as amended w.e.f. 21.4.1984) - Grant of area 
reserved for civic amenities - Civic amenity site earmarked 
for 'bank', allotted for installing a petrol pump - Held: Under 
s.38A (1), BDA would have the authority to lease, sell or 
otherwise transfer any area reserved for the purpose for which 
0 
such area is reserved, and no other -
In case, a disposition 
is made for a purpose other than the one for which it is 
reserved, it shall be null and void -
High Court has rightly 
declared the allotment of civic amenity site in question for 
establishment of a petrol pump as null and void -
Bangalore 
E Development Authority (Civic Authority Site) Allotment Rules, 
1989- r.3. 
The instant appeals arose out of the order of the 
High Court, whereby it declared allotment of civic 
amenity site no. 2 (which was earmarked for use as bank) 
F for establishment of a petrol pump, as null and void. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 This Court in 8 .. S. Muddappa's case, while 
interpreting s.38A of the Bangalore Development 
G Authority Act, 1976 as substituted w.e.f. 21.4.1984, has 
held that once an area has been stamped with the 
character of a particular civic amenity by reservation of 
that area for the purpose, it cannot be diverted to any other 
H 
540 
PURUSHOTTAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
541 
use even when it is transferred to another party. The 
A 
legislative intent of the Bangalore Development Authority 
(Amendment) Act, 1991which came into force w.e.f. 
16.1.1991 is to prevent the diversion of the user of an area 
reserved for a public park or playground or civic amenity 
to another user. [para 10-12] [548-G; 549-A-C, G-H] 
B 
Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors.1991 
(3) SCR 102 = 1991 (4) sec 54 - relied on. 
1.2. Besides, on the interpretation of s.38A(1) and (2) 
of the BOA Act the inescapable conclusion is that uls 38A 
C 
(1 ), BOA would have the authority to lease, sell or 
otherwise transfer any area reserved for the purpose for 
which such area is reserved, and no other. This clearly 
means that the Government can pass on the 
responsibility to another concern, be it individual, D 
company or corporation, for the purposes of carrying on 
the activity for which the plot has been reserved as a civic 
amenity. It does not empower the BOA to convert the area 
reserved for civic amenities for activities which do not fall 
within the definition of civic amenities. Sub-s. (2) of s.38A 
E 
is an embargo that even such sale or disposal otherwise 
of an area reserved for public parks, playground would 
not be permitted to private parties. Though such spaces, 
playgrounds and parks can be transferred to public 
authorities, but their user would be limited to the 
F 
purposes for which they are reserved under the scheme. 
In case, a disposition is made for a purpose other than 
the one for which it is reserved, the Act has declared that, 
it shall be null and void. Rule 3 of the Bangalore 
Development Authority (Civic Authority Site) Allotment G 
Rules, 1989 cannot be permitted to override the statutory 
provision contained in s. 38A(1) and (2). Even otherwise, 
the rule only reiterates the statutory provision in s.38A(1) 
and (2). [para 14] [552-B-G] 
1.3. It cannot be said that the site was never allotted 
H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A as a bank and, therefore, it could be allotted as a petrol 
pump. The High Court upon perusal of the pleadings as 
well as annexure 'C' appended to the writ petition, has 
recorded that the site in question was originally 
earmarked as park/playground in 1984 and subsequently, 
B civic amenity site no. 2 was earmarked exclusively for use 
as "bank". [para 14) [552-G-H; 553-D] 
1.4. Further, it cannot be said that the term civic 
amenities would permit BOA to change the reservation 
C from one particular user to anothel' without the necessary 
amendment in the development plan. This would be 
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of 
B.S. Muddappa. [para 17) [554-C] 
1.5. It was not the case of respondent nos. 4 to 14 
D (writ petitioners in the High Court) that petrol pump is not 
a civic amenity, therefore, the site could not have been 
allotted to open a petrol pump. Their grievance was that 
civic amenit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.