S.N. CHANDRASHEKAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1039 · Decided: 02-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
·-" 
S.N. CHANDRASHEKAR AND ANR. 
v. 
STA TE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Karanataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as amended by 
Amendment Act 1 of 2005-Sections 14, 14-A and 15-Grant of sanction by 
A 
B 
the State for change of land use from residential to commercial purpose to C 
run a restaurant-Validity of sanction under. the Act-Held, changes in the 
land use must conform to the Outline Development Plan and Zoning 
Regulations-Restaurant is not permissible under the Zoning Regulations-
On facts, the sanction order authorising change in land use does not conform 
to section 14-A and its proviso of the Act-Circumstance necessitating such 
change of user has not been spelt out in the sanction order-State and the D 
Development Authority have committed serious violation of the Zoning 
Regulations and provisions of the Act-Hence, the order of sanction for 
change of land use is not valid. 
Respondent No. 6 purchased a plot from an allottee meant for residential 
purpose and made an application to the Development Authority under section E 
14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 for converting 
the land use from residential to commercial (restaurant complex). Residents' 
Welfare Association initially objected to the conversion but later issued a no 
objection certificate to respondent no. 6 for changing the land use. The State 
issued a sanction for change of land use to respondent no.6. Pursuant to the F 
sanction, the Development Authority issued a confirmatory letter to respondent 
no. 6 subject to the condition of obtaining necessary building plan approval 
from Municipal Corporation and providing for parking space for vehicles in 
the proposed restaurant complex. 
Appellants filed a writ petition before High Court against respondents- G 
State and Development Authority-for quashing the sanction given to 
respondent no. 6 for change of land use with a direction to restore the land 
use for residential purpose. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of 
the appellants. 
1039 
H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to the Court, the appellants contended that the order of 
sanction passed by the State in favour of respondent no. 6 for change of land 
use is not permissible under the Act; that the State and the Develop111ent 
Authority had acted illegally and without jurisdiction. 
Respondent no. 6 contended that the State has power to grant sanction 
B for change in land use; that the scheme provided under Sections 14 and 15 of 
the Act is not governed by section 14-A of the Act; that, in terms ofExplanation 
appended to section 15 of the Act, the power for change in land use vests with 
the Planning Authority irrespective of section 14-A of the Act; that if section 
14-A of the Act is applied, then sections 14(2) and 15(2) of the Act would 
C become otiose; that the construction and running of the restaurant had been 
undertaken only after getting prior no-objection certificate from the Residents 
Welfare Association; and that the appellants had not initiated a similar action 
against other persons who also changed the land use for commercial purpose 
in the same locality. 
D 
The Development Authority contended that Section 14 of the Act is 
E 
excluded by section 14-A of the Act; that section 14-A interdicts the 
application of section 14 of the Act in relation to change in the land user, 
since prior to section 14-A, no power was vested in it for grant of such 
permission in the Master Plan and thus the same is required to conform to 
the provisions thereto; and that necessary procedures have been followed in 
granting such permission after considering the reports of its Commissioner 
and Town Planning Member. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The changes of land use or development from the Outline 
F Development Plan would be subject to the procedure laid down in Section 14-
A of the Act. Outline Development Plan is a one time plan and hence section 
14(2) had no application. Section 14-A of the Act had to be introduced only 
for that purpose. The proviso to Section 14-A of the Act enumerates that 
changes of land user should be one in public interest and that the changes 
G proposed should not contravene any of the provisions of the Act or any other 
law governing planning, development or use of land within the local planning 
area. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14 of the Act are app

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