| Headnote |
Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961-ss. 9.12, 13, 76J and 81A(a)-Planning Authority Rules, 1965-Rules 32 and 33 and Form II-Publication of a notice in Official Gazette-Inviting attention of the Public to the display and availability for inspection of the Plan and the Regulations-Whether sufficient compliance with s.13(4) and f Rule 53-Plan and Regulations-Whether to be bodily incorporated in the Gazette-Defect in Publication, if any,-Whether curable by s. 761-Mention of Plan and non-mention of the Regulations in the i notice-Whether amounts to non-publication of Regulations-s.13- Outline Development Plan and Regulations-Whether distinct. Administrative Law-Subordinate legislation-Nolification Necessity of-How ·and when becomes effective-Publication of Notification-Mode of-Notification-Defect in publication--lf notification otherwise served its purpose-Whether mere procedural irregularity in publication would render the notification illegal-Subordinate legislation-To be published or promulgated in suitable manner. Statutory Law-Effect of non-compliance with statutory requirement-Whether depends upon the mandatory or directory nature of the provision. Interpretation of Statutes-Interpretation which departs from common understanding of statute should be avoided.In 1961 the Bangalore Metropolitan Board was formed. The Board prepared an Outline Development Plan (O.D.P.). In February, 1963, the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 came into force with effect from January 15, 1965. Section 81-A(a) of the Act provides that the Outline Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area prepared by the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board shall be deemed to be the Outline Development Plan of the Planning Area comprising the City of Bangalore, prepared under the Act, by the Planning Authority of the Area. Section 81-A(a) further provides that the said plan alongwith the particulars specified in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of s.12(2) shall be published and submitted to the State Government for provisional approval. Section 81-A(b) provides that on receipt of the plan and the particulars, the Stale Government shall after making such modifications as it deems fit, return the plan and the particulars to the Planning Authority for taking further action in accordance with the provisions of s.13. Section 13 deals with approval of the Outline Development Plan. Section 76J provides for "validation of acts and proceedings". Rule 32 of the. Mysore Planning Authority Rules, 1965 provides for "publication of Outline Development Plan under sub.s.(l) and sub-s.(2) of s.9." It prescribes that the publication shall be made by making a copy of the Plan available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form II, (a) at the office of the Planning Authority and (b) at such other places as may be specified by the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority is also required to publish a notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers. The Publication under s.9(2) is also required to be made in the same manner. Rule 33 provides for 'Publication of Outline Development Plan and Regulations under s.13(4), and stipulates that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as approved by the State Government under sub-s.(3) of s.13 shall be published in the Official Gazette. A Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan' was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 21.12.1967 in Form II. After the State Government provisionally approved the Plan, 'Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan' was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 10.10.1968 again in Form II. In response to the invitation to file objections, as many as 600 representations and objections were received from individuals, institutions, associations, Chambers of Commerce etc. The Outline Development Plan was finally approved by the Government and a notification to that effect was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 13.7.72. The Bangalore Improvement Trust Board desired to develop Raj Mahal Vilas Extension under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. Land was acquired and plots were alloted to several people. A lay out plan was prepared and conditions were imposed for construction of houses on the sites. One of the conditions of allotment was that the sites were not to be sub-divided and not more than one dwelling house was to be constructed on each of the sites. Apparently multistoreyed, high-rise buildings were not within the contemplation of either the Improvement Trust Board or the allotees at the time of allotment. However, High buildings came up. A number of residents of the locality submitted a memorandum to the Governor and the Chief Minister to take an appropriate action to prevent construction of high-rise buildings in residential area of Raj Mahal Vilas Extention. Since there was no response some persons resorted to 'Public Interest Litigation, by filing writ petitions alleging that the Outline Development Plan for Bangalore which had been published in the prescribed manner had been ignored by the authorities in granting permission to the appellants to construct the high-rise buildings and that permits had been t granted to construct eight-floor residential buildings going to a height of 80 feet whereas under the regulations the maximum permissible height of a building was only 55 feet. Writs were sought to quash the permits granted for construction, to restrain the appellants from constructing the eight-floor buildings, to direct them to demolish the structures already put up and to require the Bangalore Urban Area Commission to recommend to the State Government against the construction of highrise buildings in any of the existing extensions of Banglore. The High Court allowed the petitions and declared the licences granted for constructions illegal and directed the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore to modify the licences so as to bring them in confirmity with the Outline Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations appended thereto promulgated under s.13(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and take all consequential actions in accordance with law. In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was contended: that publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations in the prescribed manner, that is, in the Official Gazette was mandatory under s.13(4) and that failure to so publish the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffective. The licences already granted to the appellants could not be cancelled or directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations; (2) that the Regulations were distinct from the Outline Development Plan and that in the case of the Regulations, there was no attempt whatever at publication; (3) that the High Court was in error in holding that s.76 J cured whatever defect there was in regard to the publication of the Plan and the Regulations and that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations became effective as soon as they were approved by the Government under s. 13(3) of the Act irrespective of the date of publication under s.13(4); (4) that offer of inspection cannot be a substitute for publication; (5) that s.13(1) used the words "the Plan and the particulars", s.13(2) used the words "the Plan and the the Regulations". s.13(3) used the words "the Plan and the Regulations" and s.13(4) used the words "the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations" as well as the words "the Plan and the Regulations" and this signified that the particulars and the Regulations are not to be treated as part of the plan but as creations distinct from the Plan. In the notice published on 27 .6.1972, the Planning Authority mentioned that the Plan was available for inspection at the office of the planning· authority but made no reference to the Regulations and, therefore, it must be considered that the Regulations were not made available for inspection and so never published; and (6) that neither the Municipal Corporation nor any other Civic Authority appeared to be aware of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as was evident from the circumstances that in the years that passed since the approval of the Plan by the Government and before the writ petitions were filed, as many as 57 buildings licences had admittedly been issued in contravention of the Regulations. On behalf of the respondents it was contended: (I) that there was sufficient publication of the Plan and the Regulations, that the Plan and Regulations were always kept available for inspection at the office of the concerned authorities and that it was not the case of the appellants o originally that there was no publication and that they had no knowledge of the Plan and the Regulations: (2) that the defect in the publication of the Plan and the Regulations was effectively cured by s. 76J and the passage of time; and (3) that the Regulations were integral part of the Outline Development Plan. |
