RAJATHA ENTERPRISES versus S.K. SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 03-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJATHA ENTERPRISES 
v. 
S.K. SHARMA & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1989 
[MURARI .\10HON DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 
1976: ss. 
342 & 
505/ Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961: s. 14-Con-
- struction of building in violation of statutory provisions-Compound-
ing of deviation-Validity of-Demolition--Whether called for. 
Constitution of India: Articles 226, 32 & 14---Pub/ic Interest 
~ Litigation--Construction of building in violation of statutory provis-
ions--Petitioner neither a resident in the neighbourhood nor a person 
affected by construction-Bui/ding not a source of danger either to 
in mares or public--Qua/ity of construction not under challenge-Held. 
public interest not prejudiced. 
The Government of Karnataka hy a tender notification dated 17 
August, 1979 offered for lease Government land measuring 6000 sq. ft. 
.4, in the city of Bangalore for construction of a shopping complex-cum-
school building on the basis of a plan approved by the Government. The 
lessee had to construct JS class rooms each measuring 20' x JS 'on the 
second floor of the building and they had to be handed over to the 
Government free of rent immediately upon construction. After the 
expiry of the lease period of 26 years, the building with all its structures 
and fixtures was to vest in the Government free of all ericumbrances. By 
~-•.a corrigendum issued pursuant to the tender notification, 
"'!' 
which was to be leased out was corrected as 12J66 sq. ft. 
the area 
The appellant was granted lease of the said .plot of land the 
boundaries of which were described in the schedule to the lease deed. 
On subsequent measurement the land within the said boundaries was 
found to be JSSI7 sq.ft. 
The appellant undertook to construct the said shopping complex-
cum-school on the basis of the licence granted by the Municipal Cor-
poration. While the construction was in progress the respondent No. I 
questioned the legality of the said licence in a public interest litigation 
by writ petition alleging violation of the Karnataka Municipal Corpora-
tions Act, 1976. Later, the J\!funicipal Commissioner also issu.cd show 
457 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
cause notice to the appellant stating that the plan obtained hy them had 
violated the Zonal Regulations made under the Karnataka Town and 
Country Planning Act, 1961. But after going through their reply, the Com-
missioner by his letter dated June 30, 1983 permitted them to prot.'eed with 
the construction. The High Court by its order dated July 18, 1986 partly al-
lowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Commissioner, direct-
ing him to record findings on the objections raised in the show cause notice. 
c 
The Commissioner in his order dated August 17, 1987 found that 
the appellant had not been guilty of any mis-representation in his -1 
endeavour to obtain the permission of the authorities. He further · 
observed that it has heen the practice in the City Corporation not to 
insist upon a commencement certificate from the planning authority for 
the purpose of development and held that the absence of such a certi-
ficate in the instant case did not violate the grant of licence. However, 
he took measurements of the building and by his order dated November 
3, 1987 directed the appellant to reduce the height of the building to 
D 35'0" having a total area of 30415 sq.ft. within thirty days failing which 
he threatened to demolish the three upper floors of the building at the 
cost of the appellant. The building as it stood then had six floors. 
In an interlocutory application filed by the appellant in the dis-
posed of writ petition the High Court set aside the Commissioner's 
E 
order requiring the appellant to demolish the 4th floor. It also set aside 
the order of the Commissioner to demolish the 5th floor but the Com-
missioner was given liberty to take action for compounding the devia-
tion and till then restrained the appellant from occupying the 5th floor. 
The Commissioner's order directing the appellant to demolish the 6th 
floor was, however, confirmed. 
F 
In the special leave petition preferred hy the petitioner-respon-
dent against that part of the order of the High Court that went in favour 
of the appellant, it was contended for him that the public interest was 
prejudiced in so far as the hnilding had been constructed contrary to 
the applicable provisions of the Corporations Act an

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