Suvarnamamma and others vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 11744/2020 decided on 15 December 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/354027/1/WP11744-20-15-12-2020.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: 11. In Chapter 2.0 of the Zonal Regulations, various land uses permissible within each zone are listed. There are five main categories under which the land uses are grouped. They are Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, Public and Semi-Public. In the Tables enumerated under each category, there are sub classifications. But, most importantly, before the Tables could commence, a Clause which reads as follows, is provided: Though the various uses are listed, the corresponding Space Standards for buildings/uses are to be referred. The two main parameters are minimum size of Plot and the minimum width of Road.
12. What is noticeable is even at Sl.No.10, in C2 category of Commercial uses, where fuel stations and pumps are provided, it is clearly written in the brackets, “as per Table 7”. It is also noticeable that at Sl.No.11, which provides for Kalyana Mantaps, again it says, as per Table 7. Going by Clause 4.6.2 which regulates Commercial Axes, a Kalyan Mantap could be constructed if the plot size is more than 240 sq. mtrs.
15. In Union of India Vs. Tata Chemicals Limited (2014) 6 SCC 335, it was held that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. The courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have proper application in the circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the statute.
16 &17…It is rather unfortunate that the opinion/advise of the Commissioner, BDA, was not heeded to. If the contesting respondents have proceeded inspite of such opinion expressed by the authorities of BDA, the respondents have taken the risk and they are to blame themselves. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the NOCs granted by the Health Officer, BBMP and the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, cannot be sustained.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 