Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development Vs State of Karnataka

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Mr. Budjhal R.B., J.—All the above writ petitions are filed by way of public interest litigations.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the above writ petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law.

3. The sum and substance of the prayers sought in all the above writ petitions are to declare the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2009; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and Certain Other Laws Amendment) Act, 2004; the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules 2014; Section 321-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and Section 187-A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, as unconstitutional, illegal and ultravires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; The further prayer sought in the writ petitions are to issue writ of mandamus to respondents and its officials restraining them from implementing any of the impugned legislations which are colloquially known as "Akrama Sakrama" Scheme in any manner whatsoever.

4. The writ petitioners challenged the amendment to the respective Acts and Rules on various grounds. The grounds, on which, the constitutional validity of the proposed amendment is challenged, are as under:

(i) The impugned Section 76FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, Section 321-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 187-A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and the Rules for respective Acts, are in gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as they arbitrarily affect the constitutional guarantee of ensuring a decent and planned environment for its citizens. The impugned Sections and Rules are framed in complete disregard to the purpose and objectives of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act whose main objectives are for planned growth and development with a view to improve environmental health and decent standards of living. Impugned Sections and the Rules are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as they place unfettered discretion in the hands of the competent authority for approving regularisation and are in contravention of the important pronouncements by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts.

(ii) When once the respondent State Government had already enacted a regularisation law in 1991, being the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act 1991, this method of once again providing for regularisation falls foul of the entire thinking behind regularisation. If regularisation is permitted to take place for every 20 years in the State, virtually, every illegal construction can eventually be regularized and thus, the urban planning laws and the master plans would have no meaning. It is clear, in this case, that the respondents have failed to establish a case for permitting violators of the law to go scot free by mere payment of a paltry sum of money termed as ''fees'' under the impugned Rules.

(iii) The impugned Acts and Rules are in violation of Article 14, as being arbitrary and unreasonable, as no reasons or legal basis is provided for fixing the given penalties for land use and building violations. The sum of money prescribed as fee to regularize the constructions violating the building bye-laws, is extremely low and has been lowered from the fee prescribed in the 2007 Rules, does not have any deterrent effect, as it is very economical for developers to violate the prescribed bye-laws and then regularize by paying the meager fee.

(iv) The impugned Acts and the Rules, if allowed, would amount to dangerous results, especially with regard to permitting floor area ratio violations to be regularized. Therefore, if regularisation is permitted on the basis of floor area ratio violation upto 50% in a residential complex, and 25% in a commercial building, then one can even have two extra floors for every four floors and one extra floor for every six floors in a commercial building. The impugned Sections are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as they make an unreasonable classification by treating favourably those who have blatantly violated the law and discriminating against those who have strictly adhered to the building norms and regulations. The impugned Sections are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as it arbitrarily fixes the percentage of violation of setback norms to be regularized as 50% in case of residential buildings, without giving any reasons for the same or without any basis for such classification. The impugned Acts and the Rules are in serious violation of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, as they in fact permit the regularisation for construction of residential and even commercial buildings on agricultural land.

(v) Under the Amendment Act of 2007, Section 76FFF provides that there will be punishment imposed on the jurisdictional officers who have failed to prevent unauthorised constructions and that such punishments shall be prescribed. However, neither do the 2007 Rules nor do the impugned 2014 Rules prescribe any punishment for the erring jurisdictional officers, and hence, under the present scheme, the jurisdictional officers are left scot free despite having a significant role in allowing the development of unauthorised constructions. Hence, for this reason, as well, the impugned Acts and the Rules deserve to be set aside.

(vi) The proposed Acts and the Rules have allowed for regularisation of all unauthorised construction that has taken place till October 2013, and provide for a time period of one year for making applications. This time, the period of one year is completely unreasonable and arbitrary, as it allows the persons to actually commence unauthorised constructions without plan approval and then apply for the regularisation of the same, and is therefore, encouraging such illegal actions.

(vii) Further, Rule 22 of the 2014 Rules provide that notwithstanding the repeal of the 2007 Rules, all the applications, for regularisation, received under the said 2007 repealed Rules, will also be processed as if they were filed before the competent authority. Such provision, in the impugned Rules, is completely arbitrary and unreasonable and in violation of the guarantee of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and deserves to be set aside.

(viii) The impugned Sections and the Rules violate Article 21 of the Constitution inasmuch as the right to a decent and planned environment would be defeated by such amendment. The respondent authorities: by allowing for regularisation of violation of setback norms and floor area ratio and violation of any development, have acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the citizens, including their right to health, safety and an environment free from congestion. The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean environment and the right to a meaningful existence and not merely an animal existence.

(ix) The amendment made to the plenary legislation is unconstitutional. It is not only violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution but there are internal violations to the Act and Rules itself. The proposed amendment is not in consonance with the estimated cost of development. It gives excessive delegation of power to the executive. Hence sought to allow the writ petitions.

5. The respondent-State objected the petitioner''s contention by filing the objection statement contending that writ petitions deserves to be dismissed on the ground that petitioners knowing fully well that they do not represent the public at large or the majority of the public, have taken up themselves a cause by undermining the popular demand and are becoming a hindrance to the solution of a problem that has engaged the attention of successive State Governments and therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The problem of unregulated growth in urban areas and the consequential unauthorised constructions is not unique to Mangaluru city or Bengaluru city for that matter. Though every State in the Union of India has a statute to regulate town planning, which are based on a model circulated by the Union of India, every State in the Union of India is faced with this problem of unauthorised constructions, especially in the fast development cities and towns. The petitioners did not question the competence of the State legislature in bringing about the amendments to the statute or framing the rules. The classification made by the State Government in treating the persons who have put up construction in violation of any law governing such constructions is based on intelligible differentia and the rationale beyond such classification is to achieve the objective as expressed in the statement of objects and reasons in the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991. The statement of objects and reasons reads as under:-

"Bangalore Development Authority and other local bodies have been finding it difficult in their task of meeting the increasing demand for residential sites due to disproportionately high number of unauthorised constructions on urban land. The unauthorised construction which already have come up over the years cannot possibly be demolished and any wholesome demolition would not only amount to wastage of national wealth but in some cases also create law and order problems. Keeping in view the above points, it is felt necessary to have a comprehensive legislation for regularisation of certain types of unauthorised constructions."

So long as these two criteria are met, the challenge to the impugned legislative actions invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India should necessarily fail.

6. The invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India should also necessarily fail, since the respondent-State Government has taken all care and precaution in providing safety measures and not compromising on fire safety and structural stability of the buildings to be regularized. The impugned provisions do not provide for 100% deviation. Regularisation of violation of setback norms and permissible floor area ratio is only up to 25% in cases of non-residential buildings and it is 50% only in cases of residential buildings. Sub-Section 2 of Section 76FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act 2013 lists out instances where regularisation is not permitted. Some of the instances which would have effect on the environment and a possible impact on the immediate neighbourhood and therefore precluded from regularisation are as mentioned in sub Section 2 of Section 76FF.

7. The allegation of the petitioners that unfettered discretion is given to the competent authority for approving regularisation is baseless. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2014 specifically provides the conditions for regularisation, eligibility, violation of change of land use, conditions for regularisation of unauthorised subdivision of land, conditions for regularisation of setback violations, conditions for regularisation of floor area, violations, persons eligible to apply, documents to accompany the application for regularisation, procedure for regularisation, sequences of scrutinizing the applications, prescribed fees etc.

8. The allegations of the writ petitioners that the State Government had already enacted a Regularisation Law in the year 1991 and therefore, the present action of the State Government would amount to regularisation for a second time and therefore in contravention to the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Action Group And Another v. State Of Tamilnadu And Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 425, AIR 2000 SC 3060). The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioners very well know that though the Karnataka Regulation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991 was promulgated and gazetted on 25.9.1991, the Rules were not framed to carry out the provisions of the Act. Therefore, though the said Act of 1991 provided for regularisation of unauthorised construction, the objective was not achieved and no regularisation took place in the year 1991 or thereafter .

9. Petitioners further contention is that the fee fixed for regularisation is extremely low and does not have a deterring effect on the violators. This Court while dealing with the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Construction) Rules, 2007 by order dated 11.12.2007 in W.P. Nos. 14437 of 2007 and connected matters (Annexure J in the writ petition) held as under: -

"We are prima facie satisfied that even assuming that the intention of the State legislature and the Government in making the impugned law and formulating the impugned scheme is laudable and bona fide, the object sought to be achieved cannot be achieved if the impugned statutory provisions are enforced and the scheme is implemented in its present form. Certain anomalies and irrationalities pointed out by the petitioners may have to be rectified to achieve the object and to prevent misuse. It would appear that the time granted for submitting applications for regularisation is �inadequate and unreasonable. There is considerable force in the contention of the petitioners in writ petition No. 18660 of 2007 that, all the required formalities including the payment of prescribed fee for regularisation, cannot be completed within the stipulated time which will expire on 14th December, 2007. From the submissions of the learned Advocate General it would appear that the government is also convinced that, certain aspects of the regularisation scheme opposed by the prospective beneficiaries may require review........However, we make it clear that the pendency of these writ petitions will not stand in the way of the government exercising its powers and taking necessary action for addressing the grievances of the people concerned and for amending or modifying the Rules and Regulation scheme".

Pursuant to these observations, the State Government had to do a rethinking and reduce the fee for regularisation. It is also a matter of policy and the State Government alone is competent to determine and collect the fee for permitting regularisation.

10. Similar action of legally permitting regularisation as a "one time measure" has been provided for by the State of Tamilnadu and the State of Gujarat. The Hon''ble Apex Court had the occasion of dealing with similar provisions enacted by the State of Tamilnadu in the case of Consumer Action Group and another v. State of Tamilnadu and others. The Hon''ble Apex Court has opined that the legislative action do not suffer from vice of excessive delegation of any essential legislative function. The preamble, objects and reasons and various provisions of the Act give a clear cut policy and guidelines to the Government for exercise of its power. Hence, it is neither unbridled nor without any guidelines. It is further held in the said case that the legislation brought by the State of Tamilnadu as a "one time measure" is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra-vires. In similar circumstances, in the case of Shivalal K. Purohit and others v. State of Gujarat and others, the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat has upheld the legislative action of the State of Gujarat in providing for regularisation of unauthorised construction and rejected similar contentions of the petitioners.

11. The objective of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was to achieve a uniform law for the regulation of planned growth of land use and development and to make and execute town planning schemes in the State. The objective of the Act was also to ensure proper fiscal planning in order to restrict unmanageable growth of cities, towns and villages in Karnataka. Thus, the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was enacted to solve the town planning problems.

12. Despite the best efforts of the respondents, there were large scale unauthorised development of buildings in urban areas. In pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the above case, the Commissioner of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike vide his communication dated 9.4.2014 submitted a report recording statistics and survey of unauthorised development in the area of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to the Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department and the contents of the said report are as under:

"With reference to the subject, letter of reference (2) and copy of the Hon''ble High Court interim order dated 19.3.2015, the Hon''ble High Court has instructed the Government to submit the statistics whether Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has conducted the survey of unauthorised development to implement The Karnataka Town and Country Planning (unauthorised development and construction regularisation) Rules, 2014. It is further mentioned that on examination it is estimated there are about 16.75 lakhs of sites/buildings in the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, out of which, 13.82 lakhs of sites/properties are coming under tax collection net. It is also mentioned that out of 16.75 lakhs sites/buildings for 13.82 lakhs sites/buildings taxes are being collected and the remaining 2.93 lakhs sites/buildings are estimated as unauthorised."

13. As seen from the above, at the present stage, it has become impossible to correct the unauthorised development of the buildings without affecting the lives and livelihood of lakhs of citizens in the urban areas. Therefore, as a one time measure, the respondent-State has brought the proposed amendments to regularize the unauthorised constructions. Hence, the respondent-State has sought for rejection of all the above petitions as they are merit less.

14. The proposed amendment to the Acts are as under:

"Karnataka Act No 1 of 2007

(First Published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the sixth day of February, 2007)

The Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004

(Received the assent of the Governor oil the third day of February, 2007)

An Act further to amend the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.-

Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977) and the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964).

Be it enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the fifty-fifth year of the Republic of India, as follows:-

1. Short title and commencement.-

(1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification appoint.

2. Amendment of Karnataka Act 11 of 1963.-In the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), after section 76F, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"76 FF. Regularisation of certain development and change of land use.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land has been developed or change in land use is made in contravention of section 14, 14A, section 15, section 17 or the regulations or in contravention of commencement certificate granted under section 15, the Planning Authority may regularise such development and change of land use made prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, subject to such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the prescribed amount, which may be different for different purposes, but not exceeding the estimated cost of the development.

(2) No such development or change in land use referred to in sub-section (1) shall be regularised, if it is made,-

(i) in the land affected by the alignments of any road or of proposed inner ring road, National High Ways, bypass road, outer ring road or mass rapid transit system (rail) projects;

(ii) on the land belonging to the State Government or the Central Government or appurtenant to any building belonging to the State Government or the Central Government;

(iii) on the land belonging to an other person over which the former has no title;

(iv) on the land belonging to any Board or Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government;

(v) on the land belonging to, or vested in, any Urban Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority;

(vi) on the land belonging to, or vested in, a local authority;

(vii) on the land abutting to storm water drains, tank bed areas, river course or beds and canals or below the high tension electric line;

(viii) in land reserved for parks, playgrounds, open space or for providing civic amenities.

(3) No development being a special and hazardous industry or an industry categorised as "RED" by the Karnataka Pollution Control Board shall be regularised in a nonconforming zone. Even in a conforming zone, it shall be regularised only with the clearance from the Karnataka Pollution Control Board.

(4) No development shall be regularised unless it conforms in respect of clearance from high-tension lines and fire protection measures.

(5) No development shall be regularised in the area covered by the Coastal Zone Regulations of the Ministry Environment and Forest, Government of India.

(6) No development made in basement or usage in contravention of bye law shall be regularized.

(7) No development in violation of set back norms exceeding twenty-five percent in case of non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings shall be regularized.

(8) No development shall be regularised unless the violation in respect of change in land use is first regularised.

(9) No development where the violation is in excess of such prescribed limit but not exceeding fifty percent of permissible floor area ratio in respect of residential buildings and not exceeding twenty five percent of permissible floor area ratio in respect of non-residential buildings shall be regularized and different maximum limit may be prescribed in respect of different class of development:

Provided that where such development resulting in violation is in excess of prescribed limit, such development shall not be regularized unless the development resulting in violation is brought down within the regularisable limit under this Act.

(10) Regularisation of violation in respect of change of land use shall be made as far as may be in accordance with section 14A;

(11) No development in respect of any building having more than two floors shall be regularised unless a certificate from a Structural Engineer is produced regarding the structural stability of such building;

(12) In case of a owner of the building who has made unauthorised construction in violation of the norms or zonal regulation and do not apply for regularisation within the prescribed time, the supply of water and electricity to the building shall be liable to be disconnected with prior notice.

(13) Any person seeking regularisation under this section shall make an application to the Planning Authority within three months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004.

(14) No unauthorised construction or development made in agricultural zone of approved Master Plan or green belt area declared under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 shall be regularized.

(15) No person shall be liable to pay fine or fee for regularisation under any other law if he has paid regularisation fee under this Act for the same violations.

(16) All payments made under sub-section (1) shall be credited to a separate fund kept in the concerned Local/Planning Authority called the urban areas infrastructure Development fund which shall be utilized in such manner, for the development of infrastructure, civic amenities, lighting, parks, drinking water, drainage system and for any other infrastructure, as may be prescribed.

76FFF. Penalty against jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorised deviations or constructions.- The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed."

3. Amendment of Karnataka Act 14 of 1977.-In the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act, 14 of 1977), after section 321, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"321-A. Regularisation of certain unlawful buildings.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, when construction of any building is completed in contravention of the section 300, section 321 and building bye-laws made under section 423, the Commissioner may regularise building constructed prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Ac I, 2004 subject to the following restrictions and such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount specified in sub-section (2), namely:-

(a) Where the building is built abutting the neighbouring property or where the set back provided is less than the limit prescribed in bye laws, violation upto twenty-five percent in case of non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings shall be regularized.

(b) No development made in the basement or usage in contravention of bye law shall be regularized.

(c) The construction of building shall not be regularised if it violates the building line specified on any given road unless the owners of such building furnish an undertaking that the space between the building line and the road or footpath or margin will be given up free of cost at any time when required for the purpose of widening the road in question.

(d) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (14) of section 76 FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall apply mutatis mutandis for regularisation of building under this section and application for regularisation being made to the Commissioner.

(2) Regularisation of any construction under this section shall be subject to payment of the prescribed amount which may be different for different types of contravention of building bye-laws;

Provided that the amount so prescribed shall not be less than,-

(i) ten percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twenty five percent;

(ii) twenty five percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twenty five percent but does not exceed fifty percent:

Provided further that where the portion of the building is built in violation of the provisions referred to above is being used or meant for non-residential purpose and amount payable for regularisation of such portion shall be,-

(a) twenty five percent, of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twelve and a half percent;

(b) forty percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twelve and a half percent but does not exceed twenty five percent.

(3) No person shall be liable to pay fine or fee for regularisation under any other law if he has paid regularisation fee under this Act for the same violations.

(4) All payments made under sub-section (1) shall be credited to a separate fund kept in the concerned Local/ Planning Authority called the urban areas infrastructure Development fund which shall be utilized in such manner, for the development of infrastructure, civic amenities, lighting, parks, drinking water, drainage system and for any other infrastructure, as may be prescribed.

32 IB. Penalty against, jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorised deviations or constructions.-The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed."

4. Amendment of Karnataka Act 22 of 1964.-In the Karnataka Municipalities Act (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964), after section 187, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

" 187-A. Regularisation of certain unlawful building.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, when construction of any building is completed in contravention of section 187 and building bye-laws, the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be, may regularise building constructed prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, subject to the following restrictions and such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount specified in sub-section (2), namely:-

(a) Where the building is built abutting the neighbouring property or where the set back provided is less than the limit prescribed in bye laws, violation up to twenty-five percent in case of non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings shall be regularized.

(b) No development made in the basement or usage in contravention of bye law shall be regularized:

(c) The construction of a building shall not be regularised if it violates the building line specified on any given road unless the owners of such building furnish an undertaking that the space between the building line and the road or footpath or margin will be given up free of cost at any time when required for the purpose of widening the road in question.

(d) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (14) of section 76 FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall apply mutatis and mutandis for regularisation of building under this section and the application being made to the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Regularisation of any construction under this section shall be subject to payment of the prescribed amount which may be different for different types of contravention of building bye-laws;

Provided that the amount so prescribed shall not be less than,-

(i) ten percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ana rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twenty five percent;

(ii) twenty five percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twenty five percent but does not exceed fifty percent:

Provided further that where the portion of the building is built in violation of the provisions referred to above is being used or meant for non-residential purpose and amount payable for regularisation of such portion shall be,-

(a) twenty five percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio does not exceed twelve and a half percent;

(b) forty percent of the market value, determined in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder, of the portion of the building built in violation of the provisions referred to above, if such violation of set back norms and permissible floor area ratio exceeds twelve and a half percent but does not exceed twenty five percent.

(3) No person shall be liable to pay fine or fee for regularisation under any other law if he has paid regularisation fee under this Act for the same violations.

(4) All payments made under subsection (1) shall be credited to a separate fund kept in the concerned Local/Planning Authority called the urban areas infrastructure Development fund which shall be utilized in such manner, for the development of infrastructure, civic amenities, lighting, parks, drinking water drainage system and for any other infrastructure, as may be prescribed.

187B. Penalty against jurisdictional officer failing to prevent unauthorised deviations or constructions.- The jurisdictional officer who is proved to have failed to prevent unauthorised deviation or construction that have taken place in his jurisdiction shall be liable for such punishment as may be prescribed."

15. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Advocate Sri. Sajan Poovaiah, and learned Advocate Dr. Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners and also the arguments of the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent State and learned Senior Advocate Sri. Udaya Holla, appearing for respondent No.5.

16. The first and foremost contention of the petitioners in the above petitions is that in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat cases, the proposed amendments are made as a one time measure, but in the case on hand, the State Government, in the year 1991, has already enacted a regularisation law being the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991, and this method of once again providing for regularisation falls foul of the entire thinking behind regularisation. The further contention of the petitioners is that if regularisation is permitted to take place every 20 years in the State, virtually every legal construction can eventually be regularized, and, thus, the urban planning laws and master plan laws would have no meaning. In this connection, we are referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Consumer Action Group And Another v. State Of T.N. And Others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 425 wherein it is observed by Their Lordships at Para Nos. 35 and 36 as under:

35. The submission is that this amending Act will greatly prejudice the public safety, security, fresh air and light and convenience to the public at large. Under Section 113-A the Government is empowered to grant exemption to such person who makes any application for exempting any land or building developed prior to the date of the commencement of the amending Act from applicability of any of the provisions of this Act and Rules by collecting the regularisation fees, as prescribed. So, this section not only infuses the Government with power to exempt but also lays down the procedure and condition to grant exemption. This covers all buildings or land developed immediately before the date of the commencement of the aforesaid 1998 Act. Here Legislature lays down everything and does not leave to the absolute direction of the delegatee. So, Section 113-A cannot be challenged that discretion of the delegatee is unbridled or uncanalised as section itself confers full guidelines in this regard. It is significant also to reproduce the Objects and Reasons for the introduction of this section which is quoted below:

The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amendment Act state that:

As of today in Chennai as well as in other metropolitan cities of India many aberrations in the urban development are noticed. Huge disparities between peoples income and property value, together tempt the builders to violate the rules and the buyers to opt for such properties in the city of Chennai. A rough estimate of about three lakh buildings (approximately 50% on total number of buildings) will be violative of Development Control Rules or unauthorised structures. However, according to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Act 35 of 1972) the demolition action cannot be pursued on any of them unless a notice was issued within 3 years of completion. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has booked five thousand structures on which demolition action could be taken. Number of such cases booked by the Chennai City Municipal Corporation within its jurisdiction is nearly one thousand. Administratively also demolition of such a large number of cases is neither feasible nor desirable as it will result in undue hardship to the owners and occupants. Considering this and the practise followed in other metropolitan cities of the country to deal with violated constructions, the State Government, have taken a policy to exempt the lands and buddings developed immediately before the date of commencement of the proposed legislation by collecting regularisation fee provided that the development has been made by a person who has right over such land or buildings.

(emphasis supplied)

36. The Statement of Objects and Reasons exhibits the change of Legislative policy to regularise all those buildings or lands developed in contravention of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 113-A read with the Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly indicates Legislatures intent and policy, instead of demolishing illegal constructions to regularise them by charging regularisation fees. Thus no similar attributable vice could be attached to Section 113-A which was submitted for Section 113. Section 113-A Legislature, itself lays down what is to be done by the Government, while in Section 113 Government is conferred with wide discretion though to act within the channel of the policy. In Section 113-A hardly any discretion is left to the Government while in Section 113 very large discretion is left. Challenge to Section 113 is unguided wide power to a delegatee, but no such challenge could be made against Legislature. Section 113-A is mandate of the Legislature itself to grant exemption and realise regularisation fees no discretion on the delegatee. Hence we hold Section 113-A as a one time measure is valid piece of legislation and challenge to its validity has no merit. It is interesting, though a matter of concern, what is recorded in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. It records;

(A) A Rough estimate of about three lakh buildings (Approximately 50% of the total number of buildings) will be violative of Development Control Rules or unauthorised structure.

(B) Under the Act demolition action against such structure cannot be pursued against any of them unless a notice was issued within 3 years of its completion.

(C) Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority could book only live thousand such structures and Chennai City Municipal Corporation could book only one thousand such buildings against which demolition action could be taken.

(D) Administratively also demolition of such a large number of cases is neither feasible nor desirable, as it will result in undue hardship to the owners and the occupants.

(E) Considering practise followed in other metropolitan cities of the country, the State Government took a policy decision to exempt buildings and lands by collecting regularisation fees.

We have perused the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Shivlal K. Purohit And Others v. State Of Gujarat in Spl. Civil application No. 2865/2012 and the connected matters decided on 06.09.2012.

17. In the case on hand, looking to the materials, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 that, even earlier also, when the amendment was brought in the year 1991, and when it was challenged before this Court, the same was set-aside and subsequently, the Karnataka State Legislature rectified its mistake and again brought the proposed amendment as the buildings constructed are contrary to zoning regulations. Again it was challenged by filing the writ petition before this Court and the offending portion of the building namely 6th, 7th and 8th floor of the building was directed to be demolished, which came to be affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Subsequent thereto, Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regularisation (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, was enacted by the State Legislature, which resulted in regularisation of offending portion of the buildings in question. The validity of the said enactment was challenged wherein the validity of the Act has been upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court holding that the building that has deviated the zoning regulations may be regularised by the State Government as an authorised construction. Even in the statement of objections, the respondent State has made it clear about the earlier amendment brought. It is also contended by the respondent-State that even though the earlier validity of the amendment has been ultimately upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the same was not implemented since the Rules were not framed Knowing this factual aspect fully well, the petitioners herein have pleaded, in the petitions, that this is the second time the proposed amendments were brought and hence, they cannot be construed as one time measure and cannot be held as valid. In the writ petitions itself, the petitioners have admitted that the earlier amendments proposed b}'' the State Legislature were challenged by filing the writ petition and they obtained stay of implementation of the said amended provisions and even mentioned the said writ petition numbers in their petition. It is well within the knowledge of the petitioners that earlier amendments proposed were not implemented by the State Government and the materials placed on record by both the sides show that the proposed amendments brought at present are virtually first in time and as one time measure for regularizsation of unauthorised construction and for regulation of the development of land and growth of the cities. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that it is not one time measure and repeatedly the Government of Karnataka is bringing such amendments, cannot be accepted at all.

18. The further contention of the petitioners is that m the amendments proposed to be brought in the amendment Act, there is no preamble, object and reasons, which is sought to be achieved and therefore, without having specific preamble, object and reasons, the proposed amendment cannot be held as valid amendment and it is liable to be held as unconstitutional. In this connection, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while arguing the case, submitted that so far as the amendments brought by Tamil Nadu State, so also, Gujarat State is concerned, the amending Acts were having the preamble, object and reasons to be achieved by bringing such proposed amendments. Therefore, that was also one of the reasons to uphold the State amendments in both the cases. Hence, it is contended that looking to the proposed amendments, in the case on hand, it is very clear, no objects and reasons are forthcoming, Therefore, the respondent-State cannot take shelter under the judgments in respect of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat amendment Acts.

By way of reply to the said contention, it is the contention of the respondents that the objects and reasons mentioned to the Statute to be brought by way of amendment itself is not the sole criteria while upholding or otherwise of the validity of such amendments. The Court has to see not only the preamble portion, object and reasons, but the entire provisions in the Act to ascertain whether by such amendments what is going to be achieved is to be ascertained. In this connection, the respondents have relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla And Others reported in 2003 (1) SCC 692, and the relevant para-11 reads as under:

11. Referring to the Statement of Objects and reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the Statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. The weight of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that the Statement of objects and Reasons cannot be utilized for the purpose of restricting and controlling the plain meaning of the language employed by the legislature in drafting the Statute and excluding from its operation such transactions which it plainly covers.

In this connection, it is beneficial to refer to the decision reported in (1986) 2 SCC 237 in the case of Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the Court can by ascertaining legislative intent place such construction on a Statute as would advance its purpose and object. Where the words of a Statute are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to them. The legislature may be safely presumed to have intended what the words plainly say. The plain words can be departed from when reading them as they are leads to patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or invalidation of a law. The Court permitted the statement of objects and reasons, parliamentary debates, reports of Committees and Commissions preceding the legislation and the legislative history being referred to for the purpose of gathering the legislative intent in such cases. The law so stated does not advance the contention of Sri Gambhir. The wide scope of transactions covered by the plain language of Section 170B as enacted in 1980 cannot be scuttled or narrowed down by reading the Statement of Object and Reasons."

Therefore, looking to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the said decision also, it shows that the statement of object and reasons are not the only things that would be looked into, but the entire statute and the provisions are to be looked into to gather the correct meaning and the real intent of such provisions. Therefore, in the case on hand, only on the bare contention that the Statute, containing the proposed amendments brought by the Karnataka Government, has not stated its objects and reasons, cannot be the reason to set aside the said Statute as contended by the petitioners.

19. The further contention of the petitioners that regularisation fee for unauthorised layouts or sites in corporation areas outside Bengaluru per square meters is fixed in 2014 Rules as Rs.30 per sq.mt. for land upto 60 sq.mt., Rs. 80/- for land between 60-120 Sq.mt. and Rs. 250/- for land above 120 sq.mt. Regularisation fee for setback and Floor Area Violations in residential buildings, as per 2007 Rules, 10% of the market value of land for regularisation of violation upto 25% and 25% of the market value for violations upto 50%, but in 2014 Rules, it is 6% of market value of land for upto 25% violation and 8% for violation upto 50%. And for setback and FAR violations in commercial buildings, as per 2007 Rules, it is 25% of the market value in case of setback violations upto 12.5% and 40% of the market value for violations upto 25%, but in 2014 Rules, it is 20% of market value of land for upto 12.5% violation and 35% for violation upto 25%. On the basis of the chart and the figures furnished, it is contended by the petitioners that reducing the fee for regularisation in 2014 Rules as compared to 2007 Rules, is nothing but giving encouragement to law violators. The ratio fixed for collection of the said fee for regularisation has no scientific basis and hence, they are arbitrary in nature.

20. The petitioners contended that even the time for filing applications seeking regularisation has also been extended from 2007 upto October 19th 2013, which shows that the violators of the building bye-laws and regulations were still encouraged to make the constructions by violating the building bye-laws. But the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition No. 18660/2007, wherein it has been observed that the time granted for submitting the applications for regularisation is inadequate and unreasonable. The further observation of this Court that there is considerable force in the contention of the petitioners in writ petition No. 18660/2007 that all the required formalities including the payment of prescribed fee for regularisation, cannot be completed within the stipulated time, which expired on 14.12.2007; from the submissions of the learned Advocate General it would appear that the Government is also convinced that certain aspects of regularisation scheme opposed by the prospective beneficiaries may require review. However, the Court made it clear that pendency of those writ petitions will not stand in the way of Government exercising its power and taking necessary action for addressing the grievances of the people concerned and for amendment or modifying the rules and regulation scheme. Therefore, the extension of time for submitting the application seeking regularisation is not by the respondent-Government by its own, but it is because of direction issued by this Court in the writ proceedings.

21. As per the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No. 8395/2015 filed by Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development against the State Government and others, survey was conducted by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, to ascertain the data regarding the extent of violation in Benglauru City, percentage of such unauthorised construction, percentage of construction in violation of building bye-laws as per the random sample survey. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, submitted report to the Secretary of the State Government, which reads as under:

"To,

The Secretary of Government

Urban Development Department

Vikasa Soudha

Bangalore- 560 001.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Hon''ble High Court, Bangalore, W.P. No. 8895/2015,

Citizen Forum for Mangalore Development against State Government and Others.

Ref. 1) Government Letter No. UDD 117 MyApra 2015, dated: 25-03-2015

2) Government Principal Advocate, Karnataka High Court, Bangalore letter dated: 20.03.2015

******

With reference to the subject, letter of referenced (2) and the copy of the Hon''ble High Court Interim Order dated: 19-03-2015 is enclosed for your kind perusal, the Hon''ble High Court has instructed the government to submit the statistics whether Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has conducted the Survey of unauthorised development to implement Karnataka Town and Country Planning (unauthorized development and construction regularisation) Rules 2014.

On examination it is estimated that there are about 16.75 Lakhs of sites/buildings in the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahan agara Palike out of which 13.82 lakhs of sites/properties are coming under tax collection net. The tax has been collected every year from 13.82 lakhs sites/buildings owners by the BBMP.

The details of 13.82 lakhs properties/buildings are as below.

Out of 16.75 lakhs sites/buildings for 13.82 lakhs sites/buildings taxes are being collected and the remaining 2.93 lakhs of sites/buildings are estimated as unauthorised. Since the unauthorised developments are huge it was not possible to conduct survey from BBMP. Hence, during the year 2014 Randum Sample Survey was conducted in BBMP for ward Nos. 56, 72, 80 and 109. Based on the Random Sample Survey following information is derived.

IV. Details of approximate fees that could be collected form 1,53,419 properties

V. Number of violations that would be eligible for regularisation, under the present scheme

Bringing the above information to the notice of the government, since the information is to be submitted to the Hon''ble High Court, submitted for further necessary action.

Sd/-

Commissioner

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike."

22. We have also carefully perused the draft rules of Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules 2013, published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 28.05.2014, Rule 16 provides for Regularisation Fees and Rule 17 provides for Fees prescribed for regularisation of unauthorised development of buildings, are relevant for the purpose of consideration. Perusing the said Rules 16 and 17, the Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, after conducting the survey, as mentioned above, and taking into consideration all these aspects, ultimately fixed the regularisation fees of unauthorised development of buildings when the respondent-Government has taken into consideration the direction issued by this Court in the writ proceedings and after conducting the survey regarding unauthorised constructions by violating building bye-laws and after detailed study, framed the rules regarding regularisation fees.

23. Therefore, looking to these materials placed on record by the respondent-State, the State has taken into consideration every 7 aspect of the matter basing on the statistics as per the survey conducted by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the fixation of the fees and extension of time is arbitrary in nature and it is without any basis, cannot be accepted at all.

24. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the proposed amendments by way of inserting new Sections to the Acts and the Rules framed are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, because there is no prior consultation with Bengaluru Metropolitan Committee, which was constituted under Section 503-B of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. But looking to the materials placed by both sides and the dates furnished, the question of consulting the Bengaluru Metropolitan Committee before bringing such proposed amendments by the State, does not arise in this case, since Bengaluru Metropolitan Committee was constituted and notified on 8.1.2014, whereas the draft rules of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2013 was published on 31.12.2013 and was gazetted on the same day, which is much before the constitution of Bengaluru Metropolitan Committee. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners that there ought to have been consultation with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Committee cannot be accepted at all.

25. The further contention of the writ petitioners is that the proposed amendments are contrary to or in violation of Section 14 and 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. We have perused the proposed Act and the Rules, wherein arrangement has been made with certain conditions for regularisation of unauthorised constructions and the amendments are made by the State Government considering the public need. Since the proposed amendments are in public interest, the question of violation of Section 14 or 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act will not arise in these cases.

26. The proposed amendments, brought by way of amending the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act and the ether enactments, are the policy matters of the Government of Karnataka. The Government can bring such proposed amendments and the Court cannot interfere into the policy matters of the Government. But under the judicial review, the Court can exercise the power to see as to whether the proposed amendments are unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature. It is the common knowledge of everybody that before passing such amendments to the respective provisions, the legislature will have the discussion over the proposed amendments and then only, the said provisions will be finalised. In this connection we are referring to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court, in case of Hamdard Dawakhana And Another v. The Union Of India And Others reported in AIR 1960 SC 554. The relevant paragraph for our discussion is as under:

"9. Another principle which has to be borne in mind in examining the constitutionality of a statute is that it must be assumed that the legislature understands and appreciates the need of the people and the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience and that the elected representatives assembled in a legislature enact laws which they consider to be reasonable for the purpose for which they are enacted. Presumption is, therefore, in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment. "

27. There are buildings constructed contrary to zoning regulations. On a writ before this Hon''ble Court, the offending portion of the building namely 6th, 7th and 8th floor of the building was directed to be demolished, which came to be affirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Subsequent thereto, Bangalore City planning area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 was enacted by the State Legislature, which resulted in regularisation of the offending portion of the building in question. Validity of the said enactment was challenged. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeals, in case of Bakhtawar Trust And Others v. M.D. Narayan And Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 298 has held as under:

" 30. A perusal of the impugned Act further reveals that the stipulated maximum height upto which a building may be constructed under the Zonal Regulations, 1972, has been retrospectively modified, thereby allowing a maximum height of any building above 165 feet, as opposed to the earlier permissible maximum height of 55 feet. The legislature has, therefore, not merely negated the effect of any prior judgment; but it has removed the actual basis upon which the judgment was based and thereafter validated the actions. It would no more be possible for a Court to conclude that the buildings concerned violated the terms of Zonal Regulations, since the legal basis has now been altered through an enhancement of the maximum permissible height retrospectively. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned Act is constitutionally valid.

31. It was then urged on behalf of the respondents that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Validation Act shows that the intention of the legislature was rather to render the decision of the High Court infructuous than to correct any infirmity in the legal position. For this, reliance was sought to be placed on the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the impugned enactment. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that when a validity of a particular statute is brought into question, a limited reference, but not reliance, may be made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Statement of Objects and Reasons may, therefore, be employed for the purposes of comprehending the factual background, the prior state of legal affairs, the surrounding circumstances in respect of the statute and the evil which the statute has sought to remedy. It is manifest that the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot, therefore, be the exclusive footing upon which a statute is made a nullity through the decision of a Court of law.

33. It would be pertinent for us to observe at this stage that in view of Section 3(1) of the impugned Act, any building that has deviated from the Zonal Regulations, as modified, may nonetheless be regularized by the State Government as an authorised construction. It may be seen, then, that the nature of the provision under the Regulation, stipulating a height of 55 feet has thereby undergone a radical change. The provision that was earlier in the nature of a sine qua non would now be subject to post-construction regularisation to the extent that under Section 3(3) of the impugned Act the authority concerned is empowered to determine a penalty for deviations not amounting to material deviations.

34. It follows that the basis of the decision of the High Court has undergone a change. Earlier, the High Court could not but take the view that construction of a building in excess of a height of 55 feet was in violation of Zonal Planning Regulations. Now, under the changed law, it would not be permissible for the High Court to cake that view.

36. It is true that under Section 13, the method of framing of the Zonal Regulations is provided under which a maximum height of a building can be provided by the impugned Act. The legislature in its wisdom thought to provide a maximum height of a new building in the statute itself and it is no longer left to the discretion of the authority to provide a maximum height of a new construction by framing Zonal Regulations under the Act. Now, the Outline Development Plan as prescribed in the Schedule appended to the new Act, cannot even be amended by the procedure prescribed under Chapter III of the Planning Act. The impugned Act substituted the existing Regulations with a statutory Zonal Regulation to the extent it provided maximum height of a new building. Further, this is done with retrospective effect i.e. for the entire period during which the Outline Development Plan remained in force i.e. from 1972 to 1984. It is settled law that where a law is retrospectively amended, the consequences of such retrospective amendment are that all actions have to proceed on the premise that the law, as amended, was always the law in force. In that view of the matter there was neither any need for the legislature to modify the maximum height of a new building in the manner provided in the Planning Act nor to amend the provisions of the Planning Act providing for method of framing the Zonal Regulations.

37. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the impugned Act is constitutionally valid and the view taken by the High Court in striking down the Act was erroneous. "

28. The legality of the policy and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy can be the subject matter of the judicial review. It is not for the Courts of law to enquire as to whether a policy is wise, acceptable or better policy can be evolved as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in various pronouncements.

29. As we have already observed above, before bringing such proposed amendment, the State Government, as directed by this Court, in the writ proceedings, conducted survey with regard to unauthorised construction in the City of Bengaluru, through the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. After looking to his report and the statistics in the said report, the legislature discussed upon the same and brought the proposed amendment. There is a proper menial application of the legislature while bringing the proposed amendment to the above mentioned enactments by way of inserting the new sections and also by framing the relevant rules for regularisation of unauthorised construction.

30. We have perused the proposed amendments. Looking to the amendment of Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1963, in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1963), after Section 76F, Section 76FF was inserted by way of amendment under the heading ''regularisation of certain development and change of land use''. Perusing clause (2) of Section 76FF, it reads as under:

(2) No such development or change in land use referred to in sub-section (1) shall be regularised, if it is made,-

(i) in the land affected by the alignments of any road or of proposed inner ring road, National High Ways, bypass road, outer ring road or mass rapid transit system (rail) projects;

(ii) on the land belonging to the State Government or the Central Government or appurtenant to any building belonging to the State Government or the Central Government;

(iii) on the land belonging to an other person over which the former has no title;

(iv) on the land belonging to any Board or Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government;

(v) on the land belonging to, or vested in, any Urban Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority;

(vi) on the land belonging to, or vested in, a local authority;

(vii) on the land abutting to storm water drains, tank bed areas, river course or beds and canals or below the high tension electric line;

(viii) in land reserved for parks, playgrounds, open space or for providing civic amenities.

Another amendment is by way of amendment in Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977). After Section 321 under the said Act, Section 321-A was inserted under the heading ''regularisation of certain unlawful buildings'', wherein the said provision reads as under:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, when construction of any budding is completed in contravention of Section 300, Section 321 and building bye-laws made under Section 423, the Commissioner may regularise building constructed prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 subject to the following restrictions and such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount specified in sub-section (2), namely:-

(a) Where the building is built abutting the neighbouring property or where the set back provided is less than the limit prescribed in bye laws, violation upto twenty-five percent in case of non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings shall be regularized.

(b) No development made in the basement or usage in contravention of bye law shall be regularized.

(c) The construction of budding shall not be regularised if it violates the building line specified on any given road unless the owners of ouch building furnish an undertaking that the space between the building line and the road or footpath or margin will be given up free of cost at any time when required for the purpose of widening the road in question.

(d) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (14) of section 76 FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall apply mutatis mutandis for regularisation of building under this section and application for regularisation being made to the Commissioner.

The next amendment is the Amendment of Karnataka Act 22 of 1964. In the Karnataka Municipalities Act (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964), after Section 187, Section 187-A was ordered to be inserted under the heading ''regularisation of certain unlawful building'' which read as under:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, when construction of any building is completed in contravention of section 187 and building bye-laws, the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be. may regularise building constructed prior to the date of commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004, subject to the following restrictions and such rules as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount specified in sub-section (2), namely :-

(a) Where the building is built abutting the neighbouring property or where the set back provided is less than the limit prescribed in bye laws, violation upto twenty-five percent in case of non-residential buildings and fifty percent in case of residential buildings shall be regularized.

(b) No development made in the basement or usage in contravention of bye law shall be regularized:

(c) The construction of a building shall not be regularised if it violates the building line specified on any given road unless the owners of such building furnish an undertaking that the space between the building line and the road or footpath or margin will be given up free of cost at any time when required for the purpose of widening the road in question.

(d) The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (14) of section 76 FF of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, shall apply mutatis and mutandis for regularisation of budding under this section and the application being made to the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Officer, as the case may be.

31. Perusal of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2014, it is dated 28.5.2014. Rules 4 to 8 of the said Rules are relevant for the purpose of our discussion and they read as under:

4. Unauthorised development not eligible for regularisation.- (1) No unauthorised developments shall be regularised in the following cases, if it is made,-

(a) On land abutting to storm water drains, tank bed areas, river course or beds and canals or below the high tension electric line including the land or building which is falling in the buffer zones of drains, nala, river course etc. as specified in the respective Zonal Regulations;

(b) In areas where land uses have been reserved for park, open spaces and play grounds and public or semi public activities in the respective Master Plans and developments have been made in contravention of the same.

(c) on lands earmarked for parks or Civic Amenity in approved layouts;

(d) in basement or usage in contravention of bye law/Zoning regulations;

(e) in Violation of parking spaces in contravention of Approved Building Plan; and

(f) In agricultural zone of approved Master Plan or Green Belt area declared under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Provided that only uses that are permitted under permissible uses and under special circumstances in agricultural zone of respective Master Plan may be regularized. Buildings constructed in such uses in accordance with the norms prescribed for buildings in Agricultural Zone of respective zoning Regulations may be considered for regularising such buildings violations.

(2) Where No Objection Certificate (NOC) or Clearance Certificate from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for any building is prescribed in the Zonal Regulations (applicable at the time of approval) fire protections measures as prescribed in the Zoning Regulations shall be provided and a certificate to that effect from the concerned authority shall be produced.

(3) No unauthorised development shall be regularised unless the owner hands over the portion of the plot required for alignment of roads or widening of roads as per the approved Master Plan, by relinquishment deed.

5. Regularisation of change of Land use.-Regularisation of Development of buildings with Land use violations shall be subject to the following conditions, namely,-

(i) Land use violation shall be examined with reference to the Master Plan as in force at the time of regularisation.

(ii) Change of Land use shall not be permitted in lands reserved for parks and open spaces, roads, agricultural purpose, unless such exemption or specific provision is made in the Master Plan or Zoning Regulations.

6. Conditions for regularisation of unauthorised sub-division of land/plot.-Regulation of unauthorised sub-division of land/plot shall be subject to following condition, namely:- (1) Only individual plot shall be considered, for regularisation which is registered before the date of 19th October, 2013. (2) No unauthorised subdivision or layout which does not have access to public road shall be regularised.

7. Conditions for regularisation of setback violations.- (1) The Setback violations against the approved plan but within the provisions of Zoning Regulations or Building Byelaws or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) rules may be regularised on payment of difference of prescribed fee under section 18 of the Act.

(2) Setback violations shall be calculated based on the percentage deviations made on each side against approved plan or as prescribed in the Zonal Regulations.

(3) The setback violations shall be calculated except open Chajja or Balcony. Buildings constructed by violating the road widening line (mentioned as building line in certain Zoning 3 Regulations) shall not be considered for regularisation, unless the portion of the building projected beyond the road widening line is demolished.

8. Conditions for regularisation of floor area violations.-(1) The floor area of the excess built up area constructed against the approved plan/permissible TDR shall be considered separately for calculating the percentage of violations. Any areas exempted from Floor Area Ratio (hereinafter referred to as FAR) in the approved plan, such areas shall not be taken in to consideration for deriving percentage of violation. (2) FAR violations against the approved plans but within the provisions of Zoning Regulations or building bye-laws may be regularised (on furnishing as built plan and) on payment of difference of prescribed fee under section 18 of the Act subject to limitations specified in section 76FF.

We have also perused Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2014.

32. Perusing the proposed amendment brought by way of inserting new sections to the respective Acts and Rules framed there under, reasonable restrictions are imposed for considering the buildings for regularisation. If the conditions in the Acts and Rules are complied with, only such buildings will be regularized and not each and every buildings constructed in violation of the building bye-laws. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the proposed amendment giving excessive power to the executive, even though the deviation in constructing the buildings are hundred percent, cannot be accepted in view of the restrictions placed by the State Legislature while proposing the amendments to the above Acts.

33. Apart from that, we have perused the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws 2003. Looking to bye-law No.6, the power to regulate was already provided in the said enactment. It deals with deviation during construction (i) Wherever any construction is in violation/deviation of the sanctioned plan, the Commissioner may, if he considers that the violations/deviations are within 5% of (1) the setback to be provided around the building, (2) plot coverage, (3) floor area ratio, and (4) height of the building and that the demolition under Chapter XV of the Act is not feasible without affecting structural stability, be may regularize such violations/deviations after recording detailed reasons for the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that, for the first time, such a new step was taken by the State Legislature in regularizing the unauthorised constructions. We have already mentioned in our above discussion that the competency of the State Legislature to bring such amendments cannot be challenged by the petitioners as the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in the earlier petitions, upheld the proposed amendment, which was brought in the year 1996. Since, the policy of the Government has been upheld by the Hon''ble Apex Court by its judgment in Bakhtawar Trust And Others v. M.D. Narayan And Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 298, the petitioners again cannot challenge the competence of the State Legislature on different grounds

34. The problem of unregulated growth in urban areas not being peculiar either to Mangaluru or Bengaluru City. Every State and the Union having such problems require the statute to regulate and address such problems. In view of that the Karnataka State Government thought it fit to bring about the present amendments. Much before the present amendments were effected, the State had enacted the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991 and had set out in its statement of objects and reasons that, Bengaluru Development Authority and the local bodies have been finding it difficult in their task of meeting the increasing demand for residential areas due to disproportionately high number of unauthorised constructions on urban land. Even looking to the survey conducted by the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and perusing his report submitted to the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, he has noticed that roughly about 1,53,419 buildings/sites are unauthorised. This is the situation in Bengaluru city itself. Admittedly, the amended provisions are made applicable not only to Bengaluru City, but it is also applicable to the entire State. If the buildings are to be demolished holding that they are constructed m violation of the building bye-laws, it creates disastrous consequences. Looking to the number of such buildings, the figures are not in hundreds or thousands, but the figures are in lakhs. If all such buildings are ordered to be demolished, firstly, there is national waste and secondly, the persons who lost their buildings in such operation would become homeless and actually, they will be on streets. The Government is also not in a position to provide the alternate sites to them in view of scarcity of the area. Therefore, the persons by investing their hard earned money when got constructed such buildings may be in violation of the building bye-laws, but only on that ground, it is not proper or feasible to demolish such buildings. Apart from that, the proposed amendments for regularisation are subject to conditions and the reasonable restrictions by collecting the regularisation fee and after complying with the other requirements about which we have already made a specific reference in the earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, the demolition process is not the only way of getting the things done. It would cause undue hardship to the citizens and also creates law and order problems. The laws are directed to the problems manifest by experience. In this connection, we are referring to the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R Tendolkar And Others And Etc. reported in AIR 1958 SC 538. The relevant paragraph is para No. 11, which reads as under:

"11. The principal ground urged in support of the contention as to the invalidity of the Act and/or the notification is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. In Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1045: ((S) AIR 1955 S C 191) (A) a Constitution Bench of seven Judges of this Court at pages 1048-49 (of SCR) : (at p. 193 of AIR) explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14 as follows:

"The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution have come up for decision before this court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India (1950) S.C.R. 869: (AIR 1951 SC 41 )(B), The State, of Bombay v. F.M. Balsara (1951) S.C.R. 682 : (AIR 1951 SC 318)(C), The state of west Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) S.C.R. 284. (AIR 1952 SC 75)(D), Kathi Raning-Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) S.C.R. 435 : (AIR 1952 SC 123)(E), Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. The State Of Bombay (1952) S.C.R. 710: (AIR 1952 SC 2351(F), Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad (1953) S.C.R. 589 : (AIR 1953 SC 156 (G), and Habeeb Mohamad v. The State of Hyderabad (1953) S.C.R. 661 : (AIR 1953 SC 287)(H). It is, therefore, not necessary to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like What is necessary is that there ''Must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. It is also well established by the decisions of this Court that article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but by a law of procedure."

The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and applied in subsequent, cases. The decisions of this Court further establish-

(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself;

(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles;

(c) that it must be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;

(d) that the legislature is free co recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest ;

(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and

(f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.

The above principles will have to be constantly borne in mind by the Court when it is called upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any particular law attacked as discriminatory and violative of the equal protection of the laws.

35. The proposed amendments were made after adopting the scientific method i.e., after getting the survey report from the expert. The materials clearly show that the State Government constituted cabinet sub-committee to review the regularisation scheme and self assessment scheme of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, which committee also held number of meetings and deliberated in detail on the subject. The materials further go to show that if the buildings are regularized, the Government can also collect approximate amount of Rs. 1,400.00 crore by way of fee which amount can be utilized by the Government for its developmental activities.

36. After careful perusal of the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that, all care and precautions are taken to see that there is no compromise with respect to storm water drains, tank bed areas, river courses, canals, area below high tension electric lines, parks, play grounds, open space for providing civic amenities, coastal regulation zones etc. No development in basement area or usage in contravention to the bye laws. Certification from a structural engineer is also made as compulsory. The Rules clearly show that no development shall be regularized unless violation in respect of the change in land use is first regularized. The State also has not compromised with regard to the health and safety measures and the fire security measures, while implementing the regularisation of unauthorised buildings. The proposed amendments are made based on the needs of the people. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the proposed amendments are giving excessive authority to the executive cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the proposed amendments are helping the State to have the regularisation of the unauthorised buildings and to regulate the growth and development of the cities. If the contention of the petitioners that the buildings are to be demolished on the ground that they were constructed in violation of the building bye-laws, again it is the responsibility of the State Government to look into the problems of such persons who lost their properties. Therefore, considering the materials placed on record, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the proposed amendments are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The amendments laid down the criteria for regularisation and the classes of people who are entitled to such benefits. Therefore, there is no inequality or want of equal protection of law among the same class of citizens.

37. Hence, perusing the materials and in view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the above writ petitions and accordingly, they are hereby rejected.