http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: H.KASHINATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1995

BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) BENCH: MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2510            1995 SCC  (5) 647  1995 SCALE  (4)769

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T. Mrs.Sujata V.Manohar.J.      This appeal  pertains to a plot of land situated within C.A.No.19 in  the Vth  Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore City. The total measurement  of the site which lies between 38th Cross Road and 42nd Cross Road is 298 mtrs. x 91 mtrs. The site is in two  parts. The northern portion admeasures 91 mtrs. East to West  and 165  mtrs. North to South. It lies between 38th Cross Road  and the  storm water drain. The southern portion lies beyond  the storm  water drain  and stretches  upto the 42nd Cross  Road. The  dispute relates  to a  piece of  land admeasuring 91  mtrs. x  91 mtrs. in the southern portion of this site  lying between  10th and 11th main Road and facing 42nd Cross Road.      In the  Comprehensive Development Plan framed under the Karnataka Town  and Country  Planning Act,  1961, which  has been published  under Section  23 of  this Act, the northern portion of  site No.19 has been earmarked for a park and the southern portion is earmarked for a general purpose which is a public  or semi-public  purpose. We are concerned with the portion which  is lying  in the  southern part  of this site which is earmarked for a public or semi-public purpose.      At  the  request  of  the  fourth  respondent,  namely, Karnataka Chalana  Chitra Kalavidara Sangha, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, second respondent herein, passed a Resolution dated  30.12.1983 resolving  to grant  the  above plot admeasuring 91 mtrs. x 91 mtrs. to respondent No.4 on a lease at  an annual  rent of  Rs.500/-.  The  Government  of Karnataka accorded  sanction for the same by its Order dated 10.5.1984 under  which it granted approval for the lease for a period  of 20  years on  an annual lease rent of Rs.750/-. This  was,  however,  modified  by  Government  Order  dated 5.10.1984 enhancing  the period of the lease to 50 years and reducing the  annual lease rent to Rs.500/-. Accordingly, by a Deed  of  Lease  dated  11th  of  May,  1986,  the  second

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

respondent-Corporation granted  to the  fourth respondent  a lease of the said plot for the purpose of building a theatre for the development of drama or films and in order to impart training to  artists. The  terms and conditions of the lease are set  out in the Deed of Lease. The appellants before us, on coming to know of the said lease, filed a public interest writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the allotment of this plot of land to the fourth respondent. They contended  that the  said plot which is situated in the southern portion  of site  No.19 is reserved for a public or semi-public  purpose  or  for  a  civic  amenity;  and  that granting of  lease to  the fourth  respondent is not for the purpose for  which the  said site  is  earmarked  under  the Comprehensive Development plan. The High Court, however, has rejected the  writ petition.  Hence the  present appeal  has come before us for consideration.      Respondent No.4  is  a  society  registered  under  the Karnataka Societies  Registration Act.  The objects  of  the fourth respondent-Association  as set  out in  clause (3) of the Memorandum of Association are as follows:      "(a) to  promote the  interests  of      the KANNADA FILM ARTISTS (Actor and      Actresses)   in    the   State   of      Karnataka and  to work  in  harmony      with   such    similar    societies      elsewhere in India;      (b)  to  promote  and  protect  the      rights and  privileges of  the Film      Artists  as  against  outsiders  as      well   as    between   and    among      themselves;      (c)  to  provide  basic  and  other      amenities  to   the  Film   Artists      either  in   the  course  of  their      profession or otherwise;      (d) to  provide financial and other      facilities to the family members of      the  Film   Artists  at   times  of      distress due  to death or any other      disablement of such members;      (e) to  provide financial and other      benefits to  the  members  of  Film      Artists to  prosecute education  of      their children;      (f) to build and acquire auditorium      to display  shows and  concerts for      the benefit  of the  SANGHA as well      as to  raise funds  to be  utilised      for achieving the objects mentioned      herein and  without  involving  any      activity for profit;      (g) to  raise funds through regular      subscriptions     from     members,      donations    from    members    and      outsiders,   to   conduct   benefit      shows,  stage   shows   and   other      concerts for the above purposes;      (h)   to   acquire   moveable   and      immoveable properties,  to  acquire      income bearing  securities so as to      raise  regular   incomes  for   the      society;      (i)  to   settle   and   compromise      disputes, if any, among the members      or  between   the   outsiders   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    members;      (j)  to   borrow  funds   for   the      fulfilment of the above objects;      (k) to  establish or run any school      for diffusing  necessary  technical      knowledge for  the benefit  of  the      SANGHA".      From the  Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is clear that  the  fourth  respondent-Association  has  been  formed basically to  promote the  interests  of  the  Kannada  film artists  and   to  protect  and  promote  their  rights  and interests. One of the objects of the Association is to build or acquire an auditorium to stage shows and concerts for the benefit of  the fourth  respondent as well as to raise funds to achieve  the objects of respondent No.4. The objects also include establishment  and running of a school for imparting the necessary  technical skill and knowledge for the benefit of the  members of the fourth respondent. These purposes can hardly  be   considered  as  either  public  or  semi-public purposes. The  fourth respondent-Society  is  essentially  a society to promote the interests of its members who are film artists. Undoubtedly,  the objects  are  laudable  but  they cannot  be  considered  as  objects  which  fall  under  the category of a public or semi-public purpose.      The grant of the lease is for the purpose of building a theatre for  the purpose  of giving training to film artists and for  the purpose  of development  of drama and films. It was stated  before us  by learned  counsel  for  the  fourth respondent that  the fourth  respondent proposes  to start a training school  for film  artists in the structure which is to be  constructed on  the leased  plot. It  was also stated that the theatre to be constructed can be given to any other organisation or  individual for  use. We  presume that  this would be  on payment  of hire  charges and it would not be a free use,  since the  fourth respondent  is  essentially  an organisation for  the benefit of film artists and its avowed object is to raise funds and utilise them for the benefit of film artists. The lease in question, therefore, is not for a public or  semi-public purpose. It is purely for the benefit of the fourth respondent.      In this  connection out attention has been drawn to the Building Bye-Laws  of 1983  framed by the Corporation of the City of  Bangalore, the  second respondent.  Schedule  I  of these  Bye-Laws  deals  with  land-use  classifications  and occupancies (or  uses) permitted. paragraph 1.2.7 deals with public and  semi-public uses.  Paragraph 1.2.7.1  enumerates uses that  are permitted  under this  category.  These  are: Government Administration  Centres, Secretariates,  District Offices, Law  Courts,  Jails,  Police  Stations,  Governor’s Residency and  Institutional Offices,  Educational, Cultural and Religious  Institutions including Library, Reading Rooms and Clubs.  Among the uses which are permitted are "cultural institutions like  community halls,  opera houses  etc. of a pre-dominantly  non-commercial  nature".  It  also  includes among the  uses permitted,  parks and  play grounds.  Can we consider the  allotment of  this plot  to respondent No.4 as allotment for  a public  or semi-public  use as described in the Bye-Laws?  Although these Bye-Laws do not appear to have been pointed  out to  the High Court, they have been pointed out to  us. Unfortunately,  even these  Bye-Laws do not help respondent No.4.  First of  all respondent  No.4  cannot  be described  as   an  educational,   cultural   or   religious institution. It  is essentially  a society for the promotion of interests  of  film  artists.  Secondly,  what  is  being constructed  is   not  a   community  hall.  What  is  being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

constructed is a theatre to train artists and stage plays or show films  in that  connection  along  with  a  school  for training artists.  It is  nowhere stated  that  the  theatre would be  open to  the public at a nominal cost, or that the fourth respondent  will not  make profits out of running the theatre,  or   hiring  it  out  to  other  organisations  or individuals. In  fact, one  of the avowed aims of respondent No. 4  is to  earn income  which can  be  utilised  for  the objects of  the Association.  In the  circumstances,  it  is difficult to  accept the  contention of the respondents that the allotment  of this  plot is  for a public or semi-public purpose.      The appellants  also contended  that the  lease was not for the purpose of providing a civic amenity. They sought to draw support  from the  definition of  ‘civic amenity’ under section 2(bb)  of the Bangalore Development Authority Act of 1976. Section  2(bb) although  it was introduced in 1988, is given effect  from  21.4.1984  i.e.  a  date  prior  to  the execution of  the lease  in favour  of the fourth repondent. Under Section 2(bb) ‘civic amenity’ is defined as follows:           Civic amenity means:           "Section 2(bb):/  (i) a  market,  a           post office,  a Telephone Exchange,           a Bank  a Fair  price Shop,  a milk           Booth, a  Dispensary, a Hospital, a           Pathological     Laboratory,      a           Maternity  Home,   a   child   care           Centre, a  Library, a  Gymnasium, a           Bus stand or a Bus Depot;           (ii) A Recreation Centre run by the           Government or the Corporation;           (iii)  A  Centre  for  educational,           social   or   cultural   activities           established    by    the    central           Government or  the state Government           or by  a Body  established  by  the           Central   Government    or    State           Government;           (iv)  A   Centre  for  educational,           religious,   social   or   cultural           activities  or   for  philanthropic           service  run   by   a   cooperative           society registered  under  the  co-           operative   Societies   Act,   1959           (karnataka Act  11 of  1959)  or  a           Society   registered    under   the           karnataka  Societies   Registration           Act,  1960  (karnataka  Act  17  of           1960) or  by a Trust created wholly           for  charitable,   educational   or           religious purposes;           (v)  A   Police  Station,  an  area           office or  a service station of the           Corporation of  the Bangalore Water           Supply and  Sewerage Board  or  the           Karnataka Electricity Board; and           (vi)  such  other  amenity  as  the           Government  may   by  notification,           specify".      The portion  relevant for  our purposes  is sub-section (iv) which  deals with  a centre for educational, religious, social or  cultural activities  or for philanthropic service run, inter alia, by a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration  Act, 1960.  The  activities  of  the fourth respondent,  in our view, would not fall under any of

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

these categories.  They are  activities of  a very  specific nature aimed at imparting training and promoting the welfare of film  artists. They  are  not  activities  which  can  be generally classified  as  educational,  social  or  cultural activities. Under  section 38-A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act,  there is  a prohibition  against selling  or otherwise disposing  of any  area reserved for  public parks and play  grounds and civic amenities for any other purpose; and any  disposition so  made shall  be null  and void.  The appellants also  drew our  attention to Section 16(1) of the Bangalore Development  Authority Act  of 1976. Under Section 16(1),  every  development  scheme  shall  provide  for  the reservation of  not less  than 15%  of the total area of the lay out  for public parks and play grounds and an additional area of 10% of the lay out for civic amenities. They contend that the  area in question falls within this reservation and hence should  not be  used for  any other  purpose.  In  the absence, however,  of any  relevant data  showing that  this plot is within this minimum reservation we are not examining this contention  of the  appellants.  In  any  view  of  the matter, since  the plot  is reserved under the comprehensive Development plan  for a  public or  semi-public purpose, the lease in  favour of  respondent No. 4 cannot be upheld since it is  in violation  of the  purpose for  which the site has been earmarked.      It was  contended before  us by the respondents that in the case  of  Jagdish  v.  Bangalore  Development  Authority (judgment dated 7th of January, 1990 in Writ Appeal No. 2781 of 1990  before the  High Court  of karnatka,  the  Division Bench consisting  of Justice  S. Mohan, Chief justice, as he then was,  and Justice Shivraj Patil) allotment of a plot of land in  the same southern portion of this very site for the construction  of   a  community   hall  by   the   Municipal Corporation of  Bangalore City  was upheld.  This was also a public interest  litigation challenging the allotment of the plot for the construction of a community hall. The challenge was negatived. That plot is not the same plot as the present plot. However,  this plot  is also  situated within the same southern portion  of Survey  no. 19  which has been reserved for a  public or semi-public purpose under the Comprehensive Development plan.  In the  case before  the  Karnataka  high Court in  the above  appeal, however, the Corporation of the City of  bangalore proposed to construct a community hall in a portion  of the said area at a cost of Rs. 9 lakhs for the benefit of  the public.  This was upheld as a public purpose and the  construction of a community hall by the Corporation of the  City of Bangalore was considered as a civic amenity. The present  lease, however,  is  for  a  purpose  which  is altogether  different.  Therefore,  the  respondents  cannot derive any  support from the above case. On the contrary, it is clear  that in  the above  case also  the High  Court has upheld the  contention of  the appellants  that the  site in question, namely,  the southern  portion of  C.A. No.  19 is reserved for  a public  or  semi-public  purpose  under  the Comprehensive Development Plan.      In view  thereof, the  present appeal  is allowed.  The said lease  in favour of the fourth respondent is set aside. The  respondents   are  restrained  from  carrying  out  any construction activity on the said open space allotted to the fourth  respondent   under  the  said  lease  deed.  In  the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.