http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1415 of 1999

PETITIONER:

R & M Trust

RESPONDENT:

Koramangala Resi. Vigilance Group & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/2005

BENCH:

ASHOK BHAN & A.K. MATHUR

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1999

Civil Appeal No. 1417 of 1999

A.K. MATHUR, J.

This appeal and connected appeals were filed against the order passed

by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1998

whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No. 1955 of 1993

alongwith Writ Appeal No. 777 of 1993.

Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are \026 the

Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a

Public Interest petition challenging the building licence issued for

construction of multi-storeyed/ multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in

IInd and IIIrd Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the

ground that it is illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and

direction to demolish the building already constructed on the site. It was

submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses on

the understanding and under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be

developed and maintained in accordance with law. Grievance of the

Association was, the menace of multi-storeyed and multi-apartments

buildings in the Bangalore city particularly in Koramangala lay-out which is

considered to be a posh and prestigious lay-out, had been increasing. Many

property developers, investors in buildings and speculators in real estate

were alleged to have started their activities which are detrimental to the

quality of life of the residents of the area. Multi-storeyed buildings and

multi-apartment buildings were causing strain on the public amenities. It

was alleged that the property developers by using their influence and money

are getting licences against the statutory prohibitions. The appellant relied

upon the decision given in case of Chandrashekar Hegde Vs. B.C.C.

[ILR 1988 Karnataka 356], (Single Bench) to contend that the

Corporation was not empowered to grant licences to the owners of the sites

to build multi-storeyed and multi-family dwelling units. It was alleged that

the scheme under the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 and

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 provided for construction of

residential houses and not for exploitation of those sites for construction of

buildings in violation of law and with the object of inflating the money

market of the builders. It was alleged that in Writ Petition No. 7599 of

1987, the Karnataka High Court directed the Corporation not to issue

licences to any third party for putting up multi-storeyed and multi-family

dwelling apartments in the sites allotted by the B.D.A. It was further alleged

that after the judgment in December, 1987, one of the appellants represented

to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-examine the licences already issued for

putting up multi-storeyed building and multi-family apartments in the light

of the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court. In response to that,

respondent sent communications to all the licensees to stop further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17

construction. The Writ Appeal No. 306 of 1988 filed against the order of the

learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th

December, 1988 which is noted as Pee Kay Constructions Vs.

Chandrashekar Hegde, [ILR 1989 Karnataka, 241].

In this background, the present Public Interest Litigation was filed

which came up before a single Judge. In this petition, the building licence

No. LP 169/87-88 issued in favour of Respondent No.4 i.e. M/s R&M

Trust by Respondent No.1 - the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, for

construction of multi-storey building was stopped by letter dated 4.4.1988.

This letter was withdrawn by Respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Director of

Town Planning Corporation of the City of Bangalore, by its letter dated 26th

March, 1991. On receipt of this letter, Appellant /Respondent No.4

resumed the construction. This action of the Respondent No.3 permitting the

Appellant /Respondent No.4 to proceed with the construction was

challenged to be arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution besides being in violation of law, by the Respondent

Association, alleging that issue of licence in favour of Appellant/

Respondent No.4 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The following prayers

were made in the Writ Petition which reads as under:

(i) Call for records from Respondents 1 to 3 pertaining to

building licence issued in R-1's No. LP.353/87-88 for

putting up a Multi-storyed/Multi-apartment building on Site

No. 443, III Cross, III Block, Koramangal, Bangalore \026 560

034;

(ii) Declare as illegal and void building licence No. LP.353/87-

88 issued by R-1 for the construction of a Multi-

storyed/Multi-apartment building on Site No. 443, III Cross,

III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore \026 560 034;

(iii) Direct R-1 to demolish the construction already put up on

Site No.443, III Cross, III Block, Koramangala, Bangalore \026

560 034 by having recourse to Section 321 of the K.M.C.

Act, 1973 (Karnataka Oct 14 of 1977) and other related

provisions of that Act; and

(iv) Grant such other or further relief that this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit under the circumstances including costs."

This was contested by the Respondents and the learned single Judge

after hearing the parties held \026 "I have no hesitation to hold that licences

granted to Respondent No. 4 in these Writ Petitions are contrary to law in

view of the law laid down in the case of Pee Kay Constructions."

But the learned Single Judge felt that the petition filed by the

Writ Petitioner suffered from laches and delay and, therefore, dismissed the

Writ Petition on the grounds of delay and laches. It was observed that the

dismissal of Writ Petitions will not prevent the Corporation from taking any

action permissible under the law. Aggrieved against the present order

passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal was filed and it

was alleged that the Writ Petition does not suffer from any delay or laches

nor any third party interest was created. However, the respondents contested

this Writ Appeal, they did not file the appeal against the aforesaid order but

submitted that the law laid down in Pee Kay Constructions case (Supra)

was not a good law and the learned

Single Judge was not justified in holding that licence granted to respondents

was contrary to law. The Division Bench after hearing the parties observed

that the law laid down in Chandrashekar Hegde Vs. B.C.C. [ILR 1988

Karnataka 356] and Pee Kay Constructions case (Supra) is correct law.

Thereafter, the Division Bench examined the question of delay and laches.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17

After reviewing the facts the Division Bench held that there is no delay and

laches in preferring the writ petition. It was held that building licence was

issued in favour of appellant-builder on 19th August, 1987 and on 3rd

October, 1987. The Commencement Certificate was issued on 13th October,

1987 and 23rd November, 1987 and the Chandra Shekhar Hegde's Case

was decided on 14/15/16th December, 1987 wherein it was held that the

Corporation was not justified in granting licence to the owners of the sites to

put up multi-storyed/multi-family dwelling units and the appeal was

dismissed on 14th December, 1988. On 4th April, 1988, the Respondent \026

Corporation issued a letter to the builders directing them to stop

construction. The construction remained suspended upto 26th March, 1991,

when letter was issued to builder revoking to stop construction order,

permitting them to proceed with the construction. This Writ Petition was

filed in the first week of November, 1991, as public interest litigation. The

explanation for the delay was that the office bearers made enquiries from

the office of Corporation the reasons for withdrawing of direction to stop

work but in vain, met the authorities of Corporation Respondent No.3 on

several occasions and then by a letter dated 7th October, 1991, requested to

furnish the copies of certificate but the copies were not furnished. They

protested that there was no justifiable reason for such withdrawal. They

also explained that the building is permitted to be constructed at Site No.403

which is a narrow road, the residents of area will be subjected to great

inconvenience but without any result. It was also contended that the third

party right had not been created. After the grant of permission, the

construction proceeded. However, Appellant/Respondent in their turn

submitted that the third party interest had already been created because the

4th Respondent has issued shares on 21st May, 1988 and some of the flats

have been sold out. However, Division Bench did not accept the plea of the

third party interest being created in the matter. The Division Bench

observed that when the original files of Corporation were summoned by the

Court, it was found that between 4th April, 1988 and 14th February, 1991

nothing transpired. However, the builder on 14th February, 1991 requested

for permission to complete the construction mainly on the ground that

substantial amount has been spent on purchase of site and on construction of

ground with three floor building. This letter was perused by the Deputy

Director of Town Planning on 20th March, 1991 which was submitted to

Commissioner on 21st March, 1991. It was observed that all similar cases be

put up where building is completed with full structural work as per

sanctioned plan prior to judgment. It was found that there was no note by the

Deputy Director regarding Appellant/Respondent. Thereafter on 25th March,

1991, the order was passed by the Commissioner that he perused the note

and discuss the matter with CE and the DDTP and considered the matter, he

directed that the notice be withdrawn and permission be accorded to

complete the building as per sanctioned plan. The Division Bench observed

that these notes clearly show non-application of mind and that the action of

the respondent was not in accordance with law and was passed without

giving any reasons. Thereafter, the Division Bench concluded that the view

taken by the learned Single Judge is right that the licence granted in favour

of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. The

Division Bench further held that they did not agree with the view taken by

the learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition suffered from delay and

laches and accordingly, allowed the Writ Appeal, set aside the order of

learned Single Judge dismissing the same on the ground of delay and laches

and affirmed the finding that the licence granted in favour of Respondent

Nos. 4 and 5 is illegal and quashed the licence issued in favour of

Repondent-builder, and also quashed the order of Respondent Corporation

dated 26th March, 1991 allowing Respondent-builder to continue with the

construction and directed Respondent No.1 to demolish the illegal

construction put up on Site Nos. 403 and 443. It was further directed that

the construction as raised by them is illegal and they were liable to bear the

expenses for demolition of the construction and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are

liable to pay costs to the writ petitioner.

Aggrieved by this order, the present special leave petitions were filed

and leave was granted and operation of the order was stayed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17

The learned counsel for the appellant has seriously raised the

objection of entertaining this belated Public Interest Litigation and he

submitted that this was nothing but abuse of the process of the Court.

Secondly, he submitted that the licence which had been granted for

construction by the Respondent-Corporation was fully justified and no

illegality was committed.

All the three appeals Civil Appeal No.1415 of 1999, Civil Appeal

No. 1416 of 1999 and Civil Appeal No. 1417 of 1999 arise against the order

passed by the Division Bench. Civil Appeal No. 1417 of 1999 have been

filed by bona fide purchasers of flats in the building, whereas CA 1415/99 &

CA 1416/99 have been filed by builders..

Now, in order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellants, it

may be necessary to dilate upon some facts of CA 1415/99. Property No.

443, 2nd Cross, 3rd Block, Koramangala Extension, Bangalore, was allotted

by the City Improvement Trust Board to Dr. Alice Duraiswamy on 4th

March, 1971 and he was also put up in possession of this schedule land. The

Bangalore Development Authority, successors in interest of City

Improvement Trust Board sold the schedule land in favour of Dr. Alice

Duraisamy under a registered Sale Deed dated 27th March, 1981. Dr. Alice

Duraiswamy then sold the land in favour of one M/s Batra Developments

under a registered Sale Deed dated 12th June, 1987. The development and

planning of the City of Bangalore and construction of the building thereon

were governed by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the

Outline Development Plan and the Comprehensive Development Plan as

well as the Zoning Regulations framed thereunder. The Corporation of the

City of Bangalore also framed Bye-Laws in conformity with the

Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations. In accordance, therewith,

M/s Batra Developments applied for and obtained licence from the

Corporation of the City of Bangalore for construction of basement, ground

and three upper floors on 3rd October, 1987. And thereafter, the construction

commenced and by 3rd April, 1988, the basement and ground floor of the

building had been completed. On 4th April, 1988, the construction was

stopped on the basis of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Pee Kay

Constructions Case. Thereafter, the High Court of Karnataka in a case

known as Happy Home Builders Case held that when once a licence is

granted by the Corporation Authorities, the Corporation cannot stop

construction of building. M/s Batra Developments thereafter made a

representation to the Corporation Authorities and submitted that the

substantial portion of the building has been completed and considerable

investment have been made and the licence granted thereof is in accordance

with the Building Plan and therefore, they may be permitted to complete the

construction. The Corporation Authorities after taking into consideration the

representation, permitted M/s Batra Developments to proceed with the

construction. M/s Batra Development entered into an agreement of sale

with M/s Raj Trust on 16th June, 1989. Consequent to the said agreement

under the Development Agreement dated 8th May, 1991 between M/s Raj

Trust and the appellant, the construction proceeded. When the building was

practically completed during November, 1991, the present Writ Petition was

filed challenging the very licence issued on 3rd October, 1987. The learned

Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of laches. It was

pointed out that the building was occupied by 12 families and the grant of

licence has been declared to be invalid after 11 years, but the Division

Bench did not agree and directed demolition of building on the basis of Pee

Kay Constructions case. Therefore, the question now arises for our

consideration is whether the issue of licence on 3rd October, 1987 by

Corporation was valid or not.

Similarly, in the another Civil Appeal No. 1416 of 1999, the question

of law is identical but facts are little different. In this case, on 16th July,

1969, City Improvement Trust Board allotted a site bearing No. 403,

Kormangala measuring 80' x 120 (9600 sq.ft.) (Schedule property) to Mr.

U.L. Nagraj. On 13th July, 1982, absolute Sale Deed was executed by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17

Bangalore Development Authority in favour of Mr. U.L. Nagraj with

following conditions:

"That the schedule site shall be held by the second party and

enjoyed the rents and profits etc. received thereof, be enjoyed

subject to the following conditions:-

(1) The building to be constructed shall be used whole

for human habitation and shall not include any

apartments to the building whether attached thereto

or not used as a shop or a building of warehouse or

building in which manufactory are conducted by

mechanical power or otherwise."

Thereafter, on 4th March, 1982/16th April, 1987, a Sale Deed

executed by Mr. U.L. Nagraj in favour of Mrs. Ratna Lachman Bhojwani.

Mrs. Ratna Lachman Bhojwani sold schedule property in favour of the

appellant. On 17th August, 1987, the plan was approved for construction of

ground plus three upper floors plus mezzanine floor. A licence was issued

by the Corporation of City of Bangalore. The plan was sanctioned for a

period of two years as per orders of the Commissioner from 17th August,

1987 to 16th August, 1989. One of the conditions was that the construction

should be done within two years. The appellant started the construction

immediately. On 13th October, 1987, the Commencement Certificate was

issued, as per Building Bye-Laws. On 21st May, 1988, a share certificate

was issued entitled them to ownership of flats.. Then, on 4th April,

1988 the B.C.C. asked the respondent to stop the work in the light of Pee

Kay Constructions case. It was alleged by appellant that the entire building

except the terrace of last floor had been completed. On 29th March, 1989,

another decision was given by the Karnataka high Court in the case of

Happy Home Builders wherein it was held that the construction have been

carried out in pursuance of the sanction given by the B.C.C. and Corporation

is estopped from stopping such construction. This order of learned Single

Judge was affirmed by Division Bench which reads as under :

"Delay of 14 days in filing W.A.Nos. 1145 to

1151 of 1989 and 18 days in filing of W.A. No. 1182/89 is

condoned as sufficient cause is shown.

2. We have heard the learned counsel and find

that in the circumstances of this case, without going into the

question of the powers of the authorities to grant licence

contrary to section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal

Corporation Act, the judgment of the learned Single Judge can

be sustained on the ground that there has been an unexplained

delay on the part of the Corporation in taking timely action

against the builders/owners. The Corporation is estopped

from taking any action in view of its own conduct in allowing

the builders to raise construction on the basis of the licences

which were granted in contravention of the provisions of

Section 505 and in allowing the building to be occupied.

3. In this view of the matter, we find that the

judgment of the learned Single judge, without expressing any

opinion on the question of law, does not call for interference.

Consequently the appeals are dismissed. However time is

granted to the Corporation for compliance of the judgment of

the learned Single Judge upto 5th August, 1989."

On the basis of this judgment a representation was made by

appellant & Corporation revoked their letter of stopping construction. That

gave rise to present PIL.

It is also relevant to mention here that a Special leave Petition

was filed against the Pee Kay Constructions Case before this Court and this

Court disposed of that S.L.P. without going into the merits of the judgment

of the High Court. The order of the High Court was modified in following

terms :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17

" Leave granted.

After hearing counsel for both the parties and

giving them sufficient time to obtain instructions, we are

of the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, it is

not necessary to go into the merits of the judgment of the

High Court but that the judgment of the High Court be

modified as set out below.

It is a fact that the appellants have constructed two

floors of the building : the ground floor and the first floor

alongwith the basement. In our opinion, the interests of

justice require that they should not be asked to demolish

it. It is enough if they are restrained from constructing a

second and third floor as originally planned.

The High Court has also held that the appellants

can have only one residential unit on the site. Counsel

for the respondents points out that the appellants have

submitted a revised plan to the Corporation, subsequent

to the judgment of the High Court, by which they seek

approval of the construction of a single residential unit on

the ground floor and a single residential unit on the first

floor, and that, in the circumstances, they will not object

to this revised plan being approved. On the other hand,

counsel for the appellant requests that he may be allowed

to construct three residential units on the ground floor

and the first floor as originally planned. After hearing

both sides at some length, we are of the opinion that the

appellants may be permitted to have two (not three)

residential units on each of the two floors. There should

however be no construction above and beyond the first

floor of the property and the property should not be used

for any purpose other than residential purpose. We direct

accordingly. This is an arrangement broadly agreed to by

both the parties.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will

be no order as to costs.

We direct that the revised plan submitted to the

Corporation by the appellants subsequent to the decision

of the High Court but modified so as to have two flats or

apartments on each of the floors instead of one be

approved by the Corporation and the authorities.

Constructions on the site will stand otherwise restricted

on the lines already indicated above."

The S.L.P. was accordingly disposed of but the ratio laid down

in the Pee Kay Constructions case was not examined by this Court on

merit. In fact, the S.L.P. was disposed of with the agreement of both the

parties.

And the third C.A. No. 1417 of 1999 was filed by Motor

Industries Company Limited who have purchased two flats in this building

for about Rs. 21.1 lakhs on 21.2.1994 and the same are in occupation of its

employees. It is alleged that the petitioner who had bought these flats, was

neither aware of the controversy pertaining to the building nor about any

order by any court. It was also alleged that the number of persons has

purchased flats in this residential building and they are facing the similar

predicament. Hence, these three appeals are before us for the final disposal.

Before we address to the questions raised with regard to the

maintainability of the present public interest litigation and the delay in filing

the same, we may examine necessary provisions of law bearing on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17

subject. The first Act with which we are concerned is the Karnataka Town

and Country Planning Act, 1961 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of

1961). This Act primarily deals with the planned growth of land use and

development and for the making and execution of Town Planning Scheme in

the State of Karnataka. By this Act the entire planning of State governed

and the Town Planning Schemes are made for development of the State.

Development plan means Outline Development Plan or Comprehensive

Development Plan prepared under this Act. Section 14 of the Act lays down

enforcement of the outline development plan and the regulations. It says

that from the date when this Act come into force every land use, every

change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan

shall conform to the provisions of this Act, the Outline Development Plan

and the regulations. It further stipulates that no such change in land use or

development shall be made except with the written permission of the

Planning Authority. Therefore, the whole purpose of this Act is the plan

development of the State.

The next is the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945

(hereinafter to be referred to as the `Act of 1945`) and the Rules framed

therein with which we are concerned, are known as the City of Bangalore

Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to

as the `Rules of 1964 `). We are primarily concerned with this Act and the

Rules, subsequently this Act of 1945 and Rules of 1964 have been repealed

and they have been replaced by the Bangalore Development Authority Act,

1976, and the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites ) Rules,

1982. The entire controversy centres around these Acts and the Rules. The

third Act with which we are concerned is the Karnataka Municipal

Corporations Act, 1976. Under this Act the Bangalore Municipal

Corporation granted permission to the appellant for raising one plus three

floors. As per the Act of 1945 , allotment was to be made with conditions

that they will have to deposit certain amount and then they will construct and

complete the building in the manner provided. As per the Act of 1945

schemes are prepared by the Board and after preparation of the scheme and

obtaining necessary approval from the Government, allotments are made as

per the Rules and Bye-laws. The sites are allotted as per Rule 5 of the

Rules of 1964. The allottees are treated as lessee under Rule 6. Rule 7 deals

with the applications for allotment in Form I and after completion of

necessary deposits those who are eligible for allotment, sites are allotted to

them under Rule 10. Rule 17 deals with the conditions of allotment and sale

of site. Under sub-rule (4), after all other formalities have been made i.e.

payment of the lease money, allottee is intimated about the actual

measurement of the site and particulars thereof and a lease-cum-sale

agreement in Form II is executed by the allottee and the Board and the same

is required to be registered by the allottee after constructing the building on

the site in accordance with the plans and designs approved by the Board. It

further stipulates that in case it is considered necessary to add any additional

conditions in the agreement the Board may make such additions. It also

lays down that the approval of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation

for the plans and designs shall be necessary when the lay-out in which the

site is situated is transferred to the control of the said Corporation. Sub-rule

(5) of Rule 17 says that the allottee shall comply with the conditions on the

agreement executed by him and the Buildings and other bye-laws of the

Board for the time being in force. Under Sub-rule (6) the allottee has to

construct the house within a period of two years and if the building is not

constructed within the said period of allotment, the Board reserves the right

to revoke the agreement. Sub-rule (7) lays down that the site or the building

constructed on the plot shall not be alienated during the period of tenancy.

Relevant rules which have bearing on the subject read as under :

" 17. Conditions of allotment and sale of site.-

xx xx xx

(4) After payment under sub-rule (2) is made

the Board shall intimate the allottee the actual

measurement of the site and the particulars thereof

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17

and a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form II shall

thereafter be executed by the allottee and the Board

and registered by the allottee. If the agreement is not

executed within forty-five days after the Board has

intimated the actual measurement and particulars of

the site to the allottee, the earnest money paid by the

allottee may be forfeited, the allotment of the site

may be cancelled, and the amount paid by the allottee

after deducting the earnest money refunded to him.

Every allottee shall construct a building on the site in

accordance with the plans and designs approved by

the Board. If in any case it is considered necessary to

add any additional conditions in the agreement the

Board may make such additions. Approval of the

City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation for the

plans and designs shall be necessary when the lay-out

in which the site is situated is transferred to the

control of the said Corporation.

(5) The allottee shall comply with the

conditions on the agreement executed by him and the

Buildings and other bye-laws of the Board for the

time being in force.

(6) The allottee shall construct a building

within a period of two years from the date of

execution of the agreement or such extended period

as the Board may in any specified case by written

order permit. If the building is not constructed within

the said period the allotment may be cancelled, the

agreement revoked, the lease determined and the

allottee evicted from the site by the Board, and after

forfeiting twelve and a half per cent of the value of

the site paid by the allottee, the Board shall refund

the balance to the allottee.

(7) The site or the building constructed thereon

shall not be alienated during the period of the

tenancy."

The lease agreement is required to be executed in Form II. This lease

agreement is called Lease-cum-sale agreement. Form II of the lease

agreement reads as under :

" FORM NO.II

[See rule\005\005\005\005.]

LEASE-cum-SALE AGREEMENT

An Agreement made this\005\005\005\005\005.day

of\005\005\005\005. 196

BETWEEN the City of Bangalore Improvement

Trust Board, Bangalore, hereinafter called the

Lessor/Vendor which term shall wherever the context so

permits, mean and include its successors in interest and

assigns of the ONE PART and\005\005\005\005..hereinafter

called Lessee/Purchaser (which term shall wherever the

context so permits mean and include his/ her heirs,

executors, administrators and legal representatives) of the

Other PART;

Whereas the City of Bangalore Improvement

Trust Board advertised for sale building sites

in\005\005\005\005\005Extension;

And Whereas one of such building site is Site

No\005\005 more fully described in the Schedule hereunder

and referred to as Property;

And Whereas there were negotiation between

the Lessee/ Purchaser on the one and the Lessor/Vendor

on the other for allowing the Lessee/ Purchaser to occupy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17

the property as Lessee until the Payment in full of the

price of the aforesaid site as might be fixed by the Lesser/

Vendor as hereinafter provided;

And Whereas the Lessor/ Vendor agreed to do

so subject to the terms and conditions specified in the City

of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules,

1964, and the terms and conditions hereinafter contained;

And Whereas thus the Lessor/ Vendor has

agreed to lease the property and the Lessee /Purchaser has

agreed to take it on lease subject to the terms and

conditions specified in the said Rules and the terms and

conditions specified hereunder;

Now this indenture witnesseth:

1. The Lessee/ Purchaser is hereby put in

possession of the property and the Lessee/ Purchaser shall

occupy the property as a tenant thereof for a period of ten

years from (Here enter the date of giving

possession)\005\005\005\005 or in the event of the lease being

determined earlier till the date of such termination. The

amount deposited by the Lessee /Purchaser towards the

value of the property shall, during the period of tenancy,

be held by the Lessor/ Vendor as security deposit for the

due performance of the terms and conditions of these

presents.

" 2. The lessee /purchaser shall pay a sum of

rupees\005\005\005\005..per year as rent on or

before\005\005.commencing from\005\005\005"

3. The Lessee/ Purchaser shall construct a building

in the property as per plans, designs and conditions to be

approved by the Lessee/ Vendor and in conformity with

the provisions of the City of Bangalore Municipal

Corporation Act, 1949, and the bye-laws made there under

within two years from the date of this agreement:

Provided that where the Lessor/ Vendor for

sufficient reasons extends in any particular case the time

for construction of such building, the Lessee/ Purchaser

shall construct the building within such extended period.

4. The Lessee/ Purchaser shall not sub-divide the

property or construct more than one dwelling house on it;

The expression "dwelling house" means a building

constructed to be used wholly for human habitation and

shall not include any apartments to the building whether

attached thereto or not, used as a shop or a building of

warehouse or building in which manufactory operations

are conducted by mechanical power or otherwise.

5. The Lessee/ Purchaser shall not alienate the site

or the building that may be constructed thereon during

the period of the tenancy. The Lessor/ Vendor may,

however, permit the mortgage of the right, title and

interest of the Lessee/ Purchaser in favour of the

Government of Mysore, the Central Government or

bodies corporation like the Mysore Housing Board of the

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Housing Co-

operative Societies or Banks to secure moneys advanced

by such Governments or bodies for the construction of the

building

6. The Lessee/ Purchaser agrees that the Lessor/

Vendor may take over possession of the property with the

structure thereon if there is any misrepresentation in the

application for allotment of site.

7. The property shall not be put to any use except

as a residential building without the consent in writing of

Lessor/ Vendor.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17

8. The Lessee/ Purchaser shall be liable to pay all

outgoings with reference to the property including taxes

due to the Government and the Municipal Corporation of

Bangalore.

9. On matters not specifically stipulated in these

presents the Lessor/ Vendor shall be entitled to give

directions to the Lessee/ Purchaser which the Lessee/

Purchaser shall carry out and default in carrying out such

direct5ions will be a breach of conditions of these

presents.

10. In the event of the Lessee/ Purchaser

committing default in the payment of rent or committing

breach of any of the conditions of this agreement or the

provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement

(Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964, the Lessor/ Vendor may

determine the tenancy at any time after giving the Lessee/

Purchaser fifteen days' notice ending with the month of

the tenancy, and take possession of the property. The

Lessor/ Vendor may also forfeit twelve and a half percent

of the amount treated as security deposit under clause 1 of

these presents.

11. At the end of ten years referred to in

clause 1 the total amount of rent paid by the lessee/

purchaser for the period of the tenancy shall be adjusted

towards the balance of the value of the property.

12. If the lessee / Purchaser has performed all

the conditions mentioned herein and committed no breach

thereof the Lessor/ Vendor shall, at the end of ten years

referred to in clause 1, sell the property to the Lessee/

Purchaser and all attendant expenses in connection with

such sale such as stamp duty, registration charges, etc.,

shall be borne by the Lessee/ Purchaser.

13. On complying with the terms and

conditions of this agreement in the manner stated

above but not otherwise the Lessor/ Vendor shall be

obliged to execute the sale deed in favour of the

Lessee/ Purchaser.

14. The Lessee/ Purchaser hereby also

confirms that this agreement shall be subject to the

terms and conditions specified in the City of Bangalore

Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1964, and

agreed to by the Lessee/ Purchaser in his/ her

application for allotment of the site.

15. In case the Lessee/ Purchaser is evicted

under clause 9 he shall not be entitled to claim from

the Lessor/ Vendor any compensation towards the

value of the improvements or the superstructure

erected by him on the scheduled property by virtue of

and in pursuance of these presents.

16. It is also agreed between the parties

hereto that Rs\005\005 (Rupees\005\005\005\005..) in the hands of

the Lesser/ Vendor received by them from the Lessee

/ Purchaser shall be held by them as security for any

loss or expense that the Lessor/ Vendor may be put to

in connection with any legal proceedings including

eviction proceedings that may be taken against the

Lessee/ Purchaser and all such expenses shall be

appropriated by the Lessor/ Vendor from and out of

the moneys of the Lessee/ Purchaser held in their

hands.

THE SCHEDULE

SITE No\005\005\005 formed by the City of Bangalore

Improvement Trust Board in Block No\005\005\005in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17

\005\005\005..Extension.

Site bounded on East by:

West by:

North by:

South by :

And measuring east to west\005\005\005. North to

south\005\005..

In all measuring\005\005 Square Feet.

In witness whereof the parties have affixed their

signatures to this Agreement.

Chairman

The City of Bangalore Improvement Trust Board

Witnesses:

1.

2.

Lessee/ Purchaser

Witnesses:

1.

2. ."

The conditions which have been set out in the lease agreement and

which is relevant for our purpose is condition No.4. Condition No.4 has

already been reproduced above which provides that lessee/purchaser shall

not sub-divide the property or construct more than one dwelling house.

Condition No.12 says if the Lessee/ Purchaser has performed all the

conditions mentioned herein and committed no breach thereof the Lessor/

Vendor shall, at the end of ten years referred to in clause 1, sell the property

to the Lessee/ Purchaser and all attendant expenses in connection with such

sale such as stamp duty, registration charges, etc., shall be borne by the

Lessee/ Purchaser. Condition No.13 says that on complying with the terms

and conditions of this agreement in the manner stated above but not

otherwise the Lessor / Vendor shall be obliged to execute the sale deed in

favour of the Lessee/ Purchaser. Therefore, looking to the scheme of the Act,

the Rules and the terms and conditions of the lease cum sale agreement, it

transpires that once an allotment is made to the lessee and he makes all

payments then after the payment the lesser/ vendor shall at the end of ten

years sell the property to the lessee/ purchaser and the lessee/ purchaser will

get the sale deed registered. Therefore, if all the conditions of the lease

agreement are fulfilled, at the end of the stipulated period of ten years then

outright agreement of sale shall be executed by the lessor/ vendor with the

lessee/ purchaser and the lessee will have absolute right. The lease

agreement also says that during the currency of the lease, the lessee/

purchaser shall abide by the terms and conditions of the lease. As per

condition 17 (7) reproduced above, the lessee/ purchaser shall not alienate

the property during the period of tenancy. Once all the payments have been

fulfilled by the lessee, then the land is registered in favour of the lessee by

the lessor and the lessee becomes absolute owner of the land. So long as the

uilding is not constructed under condition No.4 of the agreement the

lessee is neither entitled to alienate the property under condition 17 (7), nor

shall be sub-divide the property or construct more than one dwelling house

on it. These restrictions are there so long as the complete sale agreement is

not executed under condition No.12 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. As

soon as the lease agreement is executed conforming full title to the lessee,

then the conditions of the lease cum sale agreement come to an end and the

lessee acquires full right to deal with the said property in accordance with

the Act and the Rules bearing on the subject. After acquiring this full right

the lessee has right to alienate the property or whenever either lessee or his

successor wants to construct a building thereon he can do so in accordance

with the provisions of law. Condition No.4 of the lease agreement was only

to survive so long as the lessee continued to be lessee as his rights of lessee

are restricted i.e. he cannot alienate the property nor can he subdivide the

property and he has to construct one dwelling house. The moment the lease

cum sale agreement is executed after following the conditions of the lease as

laid down, then there is no further hurdle or condition like not to construct

multi-storeyed building or multi-dwelling house. The only condition that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17

will construct only one dwelling house is contained in Condition No.4 of the

lease cum sale agreement and so long as the full rights are not transferred to

the lessee-purchaser, this condition would survive and after the sale is made,

this condition will no longer survive and conditions contained in absolute

sale deed will govern. If the lessee or his successor wants to raise a

construction, then the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation

Act will come into play and he has to obtain prior sanction for construction

of the building. As soon as the permission is granted by the Corporation,

then he is to abide by those conditions along with the condition laid down in

absolute sale deed.

Now, adverting to the facts in C.A.No.1416 of 1999, an absolute sale

deed was executed on 13.7.1982 in favour of U.L.Nagaraj after he

constructed the house. The only condition which was incorporated in Clause

2 of the sale deed reads as under:

" The building to be constructed shall be

used wholly for human habitation and shall not

include any apartments to the building whether

attached thereto or not used as a shop or a building or

warehouse or building in which manufactory

operations are conducted by mechanical power or

otherwise."

Therefore, the only condition was that it shall be used for human habitation

and it shall not allow any apartments to the building whether attached

thereto or not , used as a shop or a building or warehouse or for

manufacturing operation. There is no condition that one cannot raise any

multi-storeyed building over the schedule property. The condition not to

have more than one dwelling house was the condition No.4 of the lease

cum sale agreement but that condition has not been repeated when the

absolute sale was made in favour of a party. As such, the condition No.4 of

the lease cum sale agreement survived during the currency of that

agreement. As soon as absolute sale is made then prohibition comes to an

end. The lease cum sale agreement was to continue for a period of ten years

or till all the conditions are fulfilled. The moment the conditions laid down

in the lease cum sale agreement are fulfilled i.e. the entire money is paid and

the registration is done and thereafter final absolute sale agreement is

executed then the so called lease cum sale agreement comes to an end and

the condition No.4 cannot subsequently guide the sale purchase agreement.

The sale purchase agreement has its own terms and conditions and the

condition as reproduced above, only says that the building to be constructed

shall be used wholly for human habitation and shall not include any

apartments to the building whether attached thereto or not used as a shop or

a building or warehouse or used for manufactory operations by mechanical

power. Therefore, in this final agreement which has come to be executed and

which has been registered the condition is that the building has to be used

for human habitation and there is no prohibition contained therein that it

cannot raise multi-storeyed building. In this connection, much emphasis

was laid on the decision in Pee Kay Constructions case. With respect we

do not see any condition under the provisions of the Act and the Rules which

prohibits raising of multi-storeyed building after final sale agreement has

been executed. This condition was to remain in force so long as the absolute

agreement has not been executed. The condition to construct one dwelling

house was only so long as the other conditions laid down in the lease

agreement were not complied and final sale agreement has not been

executed. Therefore condition 17(4) lays down that within 10 years the

lessee-purchaser has to complete all the formalities or earlier than 10 years ,

then in that case, the final agreement for absolute purchase could be

executed. Once the final agreement is executed then the lessee- purchaser

becomes absolute owner of the schedule property and he has to abide by the

conditions of the final agreement for sale and other provisions bearing on the

subject. The final agreement only contains the condition that the lessee \026

purchaser should use the schedule property for human dwelling purpose and

it will not be used in apartment of that building for purpose of shop or for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17

warehouse or for manufacturing process, therefore, the view taken in Pee

Kay Constructions case cannot be said to be a good law.

Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to raise certain

objections that in the final agreement the expression "apartment" has been

used which shows that there cannot be more than one dwelling house. We

regret to say that this interpretation does not bear out in the face of the

language used in the clause 2 of the final agreement which says that the

building to be constructed shall be used wholly for human habitation and

shall not include any apartments to the building whether attached thereto or

not for shop or warehouse or manufacturing purposes but that does not make

out a case for prohibition of raising of the multi-storeyed building. Once the

Municipal Corporation has permitted to raise construction more than three

floor then this condition for construction will hold good and they are not

contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. Section 505 of the Karnataka

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 only says that the Corporation shall

exercise power in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act, 1961. Therefore, the Corporation at the time of

granting permission has to keep in mind the provisions of the Karnataka

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. But we have not been able to find

any provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act or Karnataka

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 where any ceiling has been applied

on the construction of the multi-storeyed building. Therefore, we do not

find that the Municipal Corporation has committed any illegality in granting

permission to the appellant for raising construction up to third floor.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of opinion that

permission granted by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation to the appellant

for raising the construction up to third floor is not in violation of any of the

provisions of the Act and the Rules.

Next question is whether such Public Interest Litigation should at all

be entertained & laches thereon. This sacrosanct jurisdiction of Public

Interest Litigation should be invoked very sparingly and in favour of vigilant

litigant and not for the persons who invoke this jurisdiction for the sake of

publicity or for the purpose of serving their private ends.

Public Interest Litigation is no doubt a very useful handle for

redressing the grievances of the people but unfortunately lately it has been

abused by some interested persons and it has brought very bad name. Courts

should be very very slow in entertaining petitions involving public interest

in a very rare cases where public at large stand to suffer. This jurisdiction is

meant for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the down trodden and not

for the purpose of serving private ends. It has now become common for

unscrupulous people to serve their private ends and jeopardize the rights of

innocent people so as to wreak vengeance for their personal ends. This has

become very handy to the developers and in matters of public contracts. In

order to serve their professional rivalry they utilize the service of the

innocent people or organization in filing public interest litigation. The

Courts are sometimes persuaded to issue certain directions without

understanding implication and giving a handle in the hands of the authorities

to misuse it. Therefore, the courts should not exercise this jurisdiction

lightly but should exercise in a very rare and few cases involving public

interest of large number of people who cannot afford litigation and are made

to suffer at the hands of the authorities. The parameters have already been

laid down in a decision of this Court in the case of Balco Employees'

Union (Regd.) v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333,

wherein this Court has issued guidelines as to what kind of public interest

litigation should be entertained and all the previous cases were reviewed by

"\005\005\005.

77. Public Interest litigation, or PIL as it is more commonly known,

entered the Indian Judicial process in 1970. It will not be incorrect

to say that it is primarily the Judges who have innovated this type of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17

litigation as there was a dire need for it. At that stage, it was intended

to vindicate public interest where fundamental and other rights of the

people who were poor, ignorant or in socially or economically

disadvantageous position and were unable to seek legal redress were

required to be espoused. PIL was not meant to be adversarial in

nature and was to be a cooperative and collaborative effort of the

parties and the court so as to secure justice for the poor and the

weaker sections of the community who were not in a position to

protect their own interests. Public interest litigation was intended

to means nothing more than what words themselves said viz.

"litigation in the interest of the public".

78.While PIL initially was invoked mostly in cases connected with the

relief to the people and the weaker sections of the society and in areas

where there was violation of human rights under Article 21, but with

the passage of time, petitions have been entertained in other spheres,

Prof. S.B. Sathe has summarized the extent of the jurisdiction which

has now been exercised in the following words::

"PIL may, therefore, be described as satisfying one or more of

the following parameters. These are not exclusive but merely

descriptive;

- Where the concerns underlying a petition are not

individualist but are shared widely by a large number of

people (bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, prison inmates.)

- Where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged

sections of society (women, children, bonded labour,

unorganized labour, etc.)

- Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid

exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the

children, bonded labour, unorganized labour, etc.)

- Where judicial law making is necessary to avoid

exploitation (inter-country adoption, the education of the

children of the prostitutes).

- Where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of

the sanctity of democratic institutions (independence of the

judiciary, existence of grievances redressal forums.)

- Where administrative decisions related to development are

harmful to the environment and jeopardize people's right to

natural resources such as air or water."

79. There is, in recent years, a feeling which is not without any

foundation that public interest litigation is now tending to become

publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation and has a

tendency to be counterproductive.

80. PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It was essentially

meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the

disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a

public spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such

persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and

social disabilities could not approach the Court for relief. There has

been in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL.

Therefore, there is a need ;to reemphasize the parameters within

which PIL can be resorted to by petitioner and entertained by the

Court. This aspect has come up for consideration before this Court

and all we need to do is to recapitulate and reemphasize the same."

In this connection reference may be made to a recent decision

given by this Court in the case of Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. (S.L.P.(c) No.26269 of 2004) in which

Hon'ble Pasayat J. has also observed as follows:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17

" Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to

be used with great care and circumspection and the

judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that

behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly

private malice, vested interest and/or publicity

seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective

weapon in the armory of law for delivering social

justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of

public interest litigation should not be used for

suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed

at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury

and not publicity oriented or founded on personal

vendetta."

We fully share the views expressed in the aforesaid decision of

this Court and reiterate that it should go a warning to the Courts that

this extra-ordinary power should be used sparingly and absolutely in

necessary matter involving down trodden people.

In this connection learned counsel has rightly pointed out that

delay is very material. He has invited our attention to a number of

decisions of this Court where this Court has declined to interfere on

account of delay.

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai

& Ors. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, it was observed as follows:

" The provisions of the Limitation Act do not

as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226.

However, the maximum period fixed by the

Legislature as the time within which the relief by a

suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily

be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay

in seeking remedy under Art.226 can be measured.

The Court may consider the delay unreasonable even

if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for

a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is

more than this period, it will almost always be proper

for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable."

In the case of Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India &

ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 470. it was observed as follows:

" No relief can be given to petitioners who,

without any reasonable explanation, approach

Supreme Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution after

inordinate delay. The highest Court in this land has

been given Original Jurisdiction to entertain petitions

under Article 32 of the Constitution. It could not have

been the intention that the Supreme Court would go

into stale demands after a lapse of years. Though

Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not

follow from this that it was the intentionof the

Constitution makers that Supreme Court should

discard all principles and grant relief in petitions filed

after in ordinate delay."

In the case of Durga Prasad v. The Chief Controller of Imports

and Exports & Ors. reported in AIR 1970 SC 769 Their Lordships

observed as follows:

" Where an applicant for an Import licence in

1959 received a licence only for a fraction of the

amount for which he had asked for, chooses to wait

and comes to a Court in 1964 requesting for a writ of

mandamus even if his fundamental rights are

involved, the matter is still in the discretion of the

High Court, and the High Court in its discretion can

refuse the issue of a writ because of the laches of the

applicant."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17

In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International

Airport Authority of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628,

even five months delay was considered to be fatal. It was observed as

follows:

" Moreover, the writ petition was filed by the

appellant more than five months after the acceptance

of the tender of the 4th respondents and during this

period, the 4th respondents incurred considerable

expenditure aggregating to about Rs.1,25,000/- in

making arrangements for putting up the restaurant

and the snack bars and started running the same. It

would now be most inequitous to set aside the

contract of the 4th respondents at the instance of the

appellant. The position would have been different if

the appellant had filed the writ petition immediately

after the acceptance of the tender of the 4th

respondents but the appellant allowed a period of

over five months to elapse duringwhich the 4th

respondents started their position. We are, therefore,

of the view that this is not a fit case in which we

should interfere and grant relief to the appellant in the

exercise of our discretion under Article 226 of the

Constitution."

In the case of Ashok Kumar Mishra & Anr.v. Collector,

Raipur & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 112, it was observed that

when the final electoral roll was published in Nov. 15, 1978 it was

notified that the nominations could be filed on and after Nov.25,1978

and the poll , if necessary, would take place on Dec.31,1978. After

Nov. 25, 1978, a large number of nominations were received by the

Returning Officer. It was only on Dec.5,1978 for the first time that a

letter was addressed by petitioner to the Collector drawing his

attention to the error that had crept into the notice published under

Rule 4(1) of the Rules. By that time, the nominations had all been

received. The final list of candidates for the election with their

symbols was published on Dec.20,1978. The writ petition itself was

filed on Dec.28,1978 when the poll had to take place on Dec. 31,1978.

In that context, Their Lordships observed as follows:

" No satisfactory explanation was given in the

course of the petition by the petitioners, as to why

they delayed the filing of the petition till Dec.28,1978

even though they knew that there was an error in the

notice issued under R.4(1) of the Rules in the month

of Oct.1978 more than 2 months before the date on

which it was filed." Their Lordships dismissed the

petition as there was no satisfactory explanation for

the delay in preferring it.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Digambar reported in

(1995) 4 SCC 683, Their Lordships observed as follows:

" The power of the High Court to be

exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if it

is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and

reasonable, admits of no controversy. Persons

seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of

the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot

get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless

they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and

circumstances of the case clearly justified the latches

or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17

for grant of such discretionary relief. Therefore,

where the High Court grants relief to a citizen or any

other person under Article 226 of the Constitution

against any person including the State without

considering his blameworthy conduct, such as latches

or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so

granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was

granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal

right by the State."

There is no doubt that delay is a very important factor while

exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We cannot disturb the third party interest created on account of delay. Even

otherwise also why Court should come to rescue of person who is not

vigilant of his rights ?

We are of the opinion that delay in this case is equally fatal, the

construction already started by the appellants in 1987 and building had

come up to three floors. Thereafter it was stopped in 1988 and in March,

1991 it resumed after permission was granted. The Writ Petition was filed

in November, 1991 meanwhile almost construction was complete.

Therefore, delay was fatal in the present case and learned single judge

rightly held it. It was also brought to our notice that 46 multi storey

buildings have come up in this area. Learned counsel has produced

photographs to show that buildings more than three and four floors have

been constructed in and around this area.

However, we are satisfied that there is no prohibition under the

provisions of the Act and Rules putting the ceiling on construction of the

multi storey building. We are also satisfied that the delay is also fatal in the

present case.

It was also contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that

the appellant had no locus standi to file this petition as the present

association is neither representative association nor a registered body.

Therefore, the Court should not have entertained the PIL on behalf of ;

such unregistered and unrecognized body. It is true locus in such Public

Interest Litigation is very relevant factor & Court should always inquire into

the locus of person before entertaining such petition. We have already

observed above that Public Interest Litigation should be entertained in very

rare cases.

Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Section 11

of the Transfer of Property Act to urge that once absolute right has

conferred on the property then no rider can be put to enjoyment of that

property. It is not necessary to go into this question in this case.

As a result of our above discussion, we set aside the judgment

of the Division Bench of the High Court and allow the appeal i.e.

C.A.No.1416 of 1999. The facts of C.A.No.1415 of 1999 are

identical with that of C.A.No.1416 of 1999. Therefore, this appeal is

also allowed for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. C.A.No.1417 of

1999, has been filed by persons who have already purchased the flats

and they are living in the said flats of the multi-storeyed buildings.

Therefore, third party interest has already been created. As such this

appeal is also allowed for the reasons mentioned above. However,

there will be no order as to costs.