Page 1

'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10747 OF 2013 PURUSHOTHAM                                   ... Appellant

VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                     ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10748 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10749 OF 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10750 OF 2013

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

The  appellants  are  aggrieved  by  the  common  judgment dated 05.09.2011 in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition  No.  5173  of  2006  on  the  file  of  High  Court  of Karnataka at Bangalore.  The High Court took the view that Civic Amenity Site No. 2 has to be utilised only for the purpose for which it was earmarked, viz., for a Bank and, hence, the allotment of the same by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA') to be used as a petrol retail outlet was set aside being in violation of Section 38A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').  The respondents in the writ  petitions,  aggrieved,  pursued  the  matter  before  this Court.   

The  appeals  were  initially  dismissed  by  judgment  in 'Purushottam v. State of Karnataka' dated 29.11.2013 reported

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 1

Page 2

in 2014(3)SCC 721.  Having noticed that there were factual mistakes in the judgment of the High Court which was upheld by this Court, by a detailed order dated 10.09.2015, the review petitions were allowed and the judgment referred to above was recalled.

For the purpose of ready reference we shall reproduce the order passed by this Court on 10.09.2015 as such: -

Delay in filing Review Petition No. 532 of 2014 is condoned.

These review petitions are preferred seeking review of our judgment dated 29.11.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013, Civil Appeal No. 10748  of  2013,  Civil  Appeal  No.  10749  and  Civil Appeal No. 10750 of 2013.

The  aforesaid  appeals  were  filed  impugning the judgment of Karnataka High Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 5428 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 5173 of 2006.  Those writ petitions were filed by way of Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the allotment  of  civic  amenity  site  No.  2  to  Bharat Petroleum Corporation for establishment of a petrol pump  and  seeking  a  declaration  that  the  said allotment be declared null and void.   

During the course of hearing, on the basis of a document, it was noticed that though this site was initially earmarked for a 'Park', thereafter, the user was changed to that for a 'Bank'.  On the aforesaid premise that the site was earmarked for a 'Bank', the Court proceeded to decide as to whether it could be allotted for a petrol pump and answered the said question in the negative.  On that basis, writ petitions were allowed and the allotment made in favour of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was set aside.

We  may  notice  here  that,  in  the  meantime, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had allotted this  site  to  Smt.  Ramadevi  for  establishment  of petrol pump.  Smt. Ramadevi and her husband Shri Purushottam  were,  accordingly,  also  arrayed  as respondents in those writ petitions.  Two Appeals

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 2

Page 3

were filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and appeals were also filed by Smt. Ramadevi and Shri Purushottam.   

These  appeals,  as  mentioned  above,  were decided by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013 (which is under review) accepting the reasons given by the High Court resulting into the dismissal of the said appeals.  In these three review petitions, which  are  again  preferred  by  Bharat  Petroleum Corporation, Smt. Ramadevi and Shri Purushottam, it is  sought  to  be  argued  that  the  High  Court  was misled and the site in question was not earmarked for 'Bank' at all.  Certain documents are produced in support of this submission that the site was, in fact,  earmarked  for  civic  amenities  and  it  is sought  to  be  shown  that  civil  amenities  include petrol pump.  The documents which are produced have been  obtained  from  the  Bangalore  Development Authority under the Right to Information Act.

Since  these  are  official  documents,  their genuineness,  prima  facie,  cannot  be  doubted. Further,  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice that  implication/effect  of  these  documents  is considered.  For these reasons, the judgment dated 29.11.2013 requires to be recalled and the matter needs to be examined afresh in the light of these documents.   These  review  petitions  are, accordingly, allowed recalling the judgment dated 29.11.2013 and the appeals are restored to their original numbers, viz., Civil Appeal No. 10747 of 2013,  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  10749-10750  of  2013  and Civil Appeal No. 10748 of 2013.  

We may mention that we had started hearing, with  the  consent  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the parties,  the  appeals  afresh  on  merits  as  well. However,  after  some  arguments,  learned  counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 requests for some time in order to verify these documents.

At  request,  liberty  is  granted  to  Bharat Petroleum  Corporation  Limited  to  file  additional affidavit within two weeks.

Reply thereto, shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 4 to 14 within two weeks thereafter.

The civil appeals shall be listed after four weeks.

Interim orders to continue, in the meantime.”

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 3

Page 4

Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, apparently having gone through the  documents,  submits  that  the  appellants  have  already submitted  documents  referred  to  in  the  Review  Petitions before the High Court and have sought for a review before the High Court itself and, hence, the matter be remanded to the High Court.   

Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for  the  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation  and  learned  senior counsel appearing for other appellants submit that since the errors are apparent on the face of the record and which have been noted from the records already available before this Court itself at the time of hearing of the review petition, the matter needs to be given a quietus before this Court particularly in view of the judgment rendered by this Court.

Be that as it may, grievance essentially pertains to the dispute as to whether the site No. 2 earmarked for civic amenity in a Modified Layout Plan of Scheme between Hennur Road and Bana Swadi Road, Bangalore, is for a Bank or any other civic amenity.

The Modified Layout Plan was available before the High Court as produced by the BDA along with their statement and marked as Annexure R2.  In any case, the learned counsel for BDA submits that the Layout Plan produced as Annexure R4 with

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 4

Page 5

a covering letter dated 21.12.2013 in the Review Petition is the authenticated copy of the Plan and it is not disputed also.   

Our attention has been invited to the Layout Plan and it is seen that in Plot No. 19 [CA2] there is no earmarked purpose whereas it is plot No. 20 that is earmarked to be used as Bank and plot No. 21 for P&T.  Therefore, the whole basis of the contention of the writ petitioners before the High  Court  is  totally  shaken  and  the  same  is  wholly misconceived on facts.  The petrol outlet is in Plot No. 19.

Once it is seen that against the disputed plot No. 19, no  purpose  as  such  is  shown,  the  BDA  is  well  within jurisdiction to allot it for any civic amenity.  There is no dispute that petrol pump is a civic amenity coming under the definition of civic amenity in Section 2(bb)(vi) of the Act read with the Notification dated 29.08.1990.  Under Section 38A of the Act, the only restriction cast upon the Authority is that it shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any area reserved  for  public  parks  and  playgrounds  and  civic amenities,  for  any  other  purpose  and  if  so  made,  such disposition would be null and void.

Once it is seen from the Notification dated 29.08.1990 that petrol pump is a civic amenity duly notified in terms of Section 2(bb) of the Act, nothing prevents the Authority from allotting it for being used as a notified civic amenity.

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 5

Page 6

Therefore, it has become unnecessary to consider any other point.

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ  petitions  filed  before  the  High  Court.   They  are, accordingly, dismissed.  The civil appeals are allowed as above.

No costs.    

......................, J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

......................, J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

New Delhi; December 02, 2015.

C.A. No. 10747/2013 etc. 6