{"id":3329,"date":"2006-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006"},"modified":"2017-12-29T11:24:51","modified_gmt":"2017-12-29T05:54:51","slug":"s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  938 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nS.N. Chandrashekar and Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23815 of 2004]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA , J :\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Town and Country
\nPlanning Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’).  The Bangalore Development
\nAuthority (for short, ‘the BDA’) had been constituted under the said Act.  A
\nComprehensive Development Plan was prepared by the BDA.  In  Jayanagar
\nwhich is a residential area in the town of Bangalore, allotment of houses had
\nbeen made to individuals for residential purpose only in terms of the said
\ndevelopment plan. Whereas the Appellants were allotted houses bearing nos.
\n282D and 281D, one K.V. Ramachandra was allotted Plot No.585.  A deed
\nof sale was executed in his favour on 10.12.1994, inter alia, on the condition
\nthat the same  would be exclusively used for residential purpose only.  The
\nRespondent No. 6 purchased the said premises from the said K.V.
\nRamachandra by a registered deed of sale dated 24.08.1998.  He intended to
\nconvert  the land use from residential to commercial wherefor an application
\nwas made before the BDA.  The said application was treated to be one under
\nSection 14-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Jayanagar  5th Block Residents’ Welfare Association filed its
\nobjections thereto on 27.03.1999.  It, however, later on issued a no objection
\ncertificate, stating :\n<\/p>\n
“The Association has no objection for conversion of
\nthe site for commercial purpose for the use of a
\nvegetarian restaurant.  The premises is a corner site and
\nyou must arrange separate parking without obstructing
\nthe movement of vehicles.”\n<\/p>\n
\tInspections of the plot in question by two senior officers of BDA were
\nmade thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
Upon completion of the requisite formalities, sanction for change of
\nland use was issued on or about 07.10.1999.  Pursuant to the order of
\nsanction granted by the State of Karnataka, the BDA issued a confirmatory
\nletter dated 10.12.1999 subject to the condition of obtaining necessary
\nbuilding plan approved by the Corporation and providing for parking of
\nvehicles in the building.\n<\/p>\n
An objection was raised by the residents of the locality when the said
\nrespondent started a restaurant without obtaining any licence therefor.  An
\napplication for grant of licence was submitted by the Respondent No.6 on
\n17.01.2000. The Corporation informed the Respondent No.6 that his
\napplication would be considered only upon completion of construction of the
\nbuilding.  However, he made another application on 25.02.2000 for grant of
\nlicence.   He also filed a writ application before the Karnataka High Court,
\nmarked as W.P. No.11139 of 2000 wherein the Corporation was directed to
\nconsider his application for grant of licence within six weeks.  A building
\nlicence was granted in his favour on 12.05.2000 and  a modified plan was
\nsanctioned on 19.08.2000.  He was granted a licence to run the restaurant till
\n31.03.2000.\n<\/p>\n
Questioning the legality and\/or validity of the said notification dated
\n04.08.1999, some of the residents of the locality filed a public interest
\nlitigation being Writ Petition No.9078 of 2001.  In the meanwhile a notice
\nwas issued to the Respondent No. 6 by the Corporation  as to why, deviation
\nhaving been made from the sanctioned plan, the same should not be directed
\nto be removed.  As  the Respondent No.6 failed to remove the deviated
\nportions, the Corporation by its notice dated 06.01.2002 authorized the
\nExecutive Engineer to give effect to the confirmatory order passed by it by
\nremoving the deviated portions. The Respondent No.6 thereupon approached
\nthe Standing Committee by way of appeal whereafter his hotel licence was
\nrenewed.  As running of hotel allegedly caused nuisance, a representation
\nwas made by the Ladies Association of the locality on 12.01.2002.  A further
\nrepresentation was made on 19.01.2002 by the general public.\n<\/p>\n
As no response was made in relation thereto, the Appellants herein
\nfiled a writ petition before the  Karnataka High Court, inter alia, praying for
\nthe following relief’s :\n<\/p>\n
“1)\tIssue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari
\nquashing Order No. UDD 194 BDA 99 Dt.\n<\/p>\n
07.10.1999 passed by the Under Secretary to
\nGovernment (Annexure-D);\n<\/p>\n
2)\tIssue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari
\nquashing the confirmatory letter
\nNo.BDA\/DUP\/1349\/99-2000 Dt. 10.12.1999
\n(Annexure “E”) issued by the Bangalore
\nDevelopment Authority;\n<\/p>\n
3)\tDeclare that the proceedings of the Standing
\nCommittee Dt. 16.03.2002 in subject No. Aa. Stha.
\nSa(Aa) 798-01-02 (produced as Annexure “N”) to
\nthe extent the said proceedings grants renewal of
\nhotel licence in favour of Respondent No.6 as null
\n& void and beyond the competence of the Standing
\nCommittee;\n<\/p>\n
4)\tIssue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
\nthe Respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate steps to
\nprevent Respondent No.6 from using the premises
\nNo.585, 10th Main Road, V Block, Jayanagar,
\nBangalore for running a hotel and to ensure that
\nthe said premises is used only for residential
\npurposes;”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn his counter affidavit, the Respondent No.6 herein, inter alia,
\ncontended that the Residential Welfare Association, gave its consent by
\nletter dated 13.04.1999 for change of user of the property and for
\nestablishing a vegetarian restaurant at Plot No.585.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellants
\nherein holding, inter alia,: (i)  when objections were called for, wherefor
\nnotices were published in several newspapers, only Jayanagar 5th  Block
\nResidents’ Welfare Association  filed an objection and later on withdrew the
\nsame; (ii) the BDA in its resolution dated 29.06.1999 held that conversion
\nwas in public interest and permitted the conversion of use from dwelling to
\ncommercial (restaurant);  (iii) as the Appellants did not file any objection,
\nthey were not entitled to any relief; and (iv) number of permissions by the
\nplanning authorities had been accorded for change of land use by invoking
\nSection 14-A of the Act and, thus, there was no reason, why such permission
\nshould not be granted to the Respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. U.U. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nAppellants, contended that having regard to the fact that  Section 14-A was
\nspecifically introduced in the year 1991, the State of Karnataka as also the
\nBDA acted illegally and without jurisdiction in granting such permission as
\nthe conditions precedent laid down therefor  had not been fulfilled.  It was
\nsubmitted that while granting such permission, the basic issue that such
\nchange of land use is impermissible in law had not been taken into
\nconsideration and the impugned order was passed upon taking into
\nconsideration irrelevant factors and without considering the relevant ones.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S.S. Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nRespondent No. 6, on the other hand,  submitted : (i) From various
\nprovisions of the Act, it would appear that Sections 14 and 15 thereof
\nprovide for a separate scheme which is not governed by Section 14-A of the
\nAct. (ii) As in terms of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, the power as regard
\nchange in user vests in the Planning Authority, it was not necessary to
\ninvoke Section 14-A of the Act.  (iii) If the provisions of Section 14-A in a
\ncase of this nature is applied, Sections 14(2) and 15(2) would become otiose.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Having regard to the fact that the Association had given its consent,
\nconstructions were permitted to start a vegetarian restaurant by the
\nRespondent No.6 and the said restaurant has been running for a period of
\nmore than three years;  and (v) as the other persons similarly situated are
\noperating in the area and as the Appellants or any other person had not taken
\nany objection thereto, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its
\ndiscretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the BDA, would
\nsubmit that Section 14, which provides for a prohibitory clause as regard
\nchange of user, must be held to be excluded by Section 14-A of the Act.
\nThe learned counsel urged that Section 14-A interdicts the application of
\nSection 14 in relation to change in the land user;  as prior to Section 14-A,
\nno power was vested in the BDA for grant of such permission in the change
\nof Master Plan, and, thus, the same is required to conform to the provisions
\nthereto.  However, in view of the fact that the procedures have been
\nfollowed in granting such permission upon taking into consideration the
\nreports submitted by the two senior officers, even if any error has been
\ncommitted, this Court should not exercise its discretionary  jurisdiction
\nunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
STATUTORY PROVISIONS:\n<\/p>\n
The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to
\ntown planning, some of the relevant provisions of the Act are as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“2.\tIn this Act, as it then stood,  unless the context otherwise
\nrequires,-\n<\/p>\n
(1-c)\t“Development” with its grammatical  variations,
\nmeans the carrying out of building, engineering,
\nmining, or other operations in, on, over or under
\nland or the making of any material change in any
\nbuilding or land, or in the use of any building or
\nland and includes sub-division of any land;\n<\/p>\n
(1-d)\t“Development plan”  means Outline
\nDevelopment Plan or Comprehensive
\nDevelopment Plan prepared under this Act<\/p>\n
(2)\t“Land” includes benefits arising out of land and
\nthings attached to the earth or permanently
\nfastened to anything attached to the earth;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t“Land use” means the major use to which a plot
\nof land is being used on any specified date;\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t“Owner” includes any person for the time being
\nreceiving or entitled to receive, whether on his
\nown account or as agent, trustee, guardian,
\nmanager, or receiver for another person, or for any
\nreligious or charitable purpose, the rents or profits
\nof the property in connection with which it is used;\n<\/p>\n
(7)\t“Planning Authority” means, –\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tin the case of <\/p>\n
(i)\tthe local planning area comprising the City
\nof Bangalore, the Bangalore Development
\nAuthority, and<\/p>\n
(i-a)\tthe local planning area comprising any
\nurban area” defined in the Karnataka Urban
\nDevelopment Authorities Act, 1987, the
\nUrban Development Authority of such urban
\narea<\/p>\n
(ii)\tany other local planning area in respect of
\nwhich the State Government may deem it
\nexpedient to constitute a separate Planning
\nAuthority,<\/p>\n
the Planning Authority constituted under this Act,<\/p>\n
(b)\tin the case of local planning area in respect of
\nwhich a Planning Authority is not constituted
\nunder this Act, the Town Improvement Board
\nconstituted under any law for the time being in
\nforce having jurisdiction over such local planning
\narea, and where there is no such Town
\nImprovement Board, the local authority having
\njurisdiction over such local planning area;\n<\/p>\n
(8)\t“Plot” mean a continuous portion of land held in
\none ownership;\n<\/p>\n
Section 12 of the Act, as it then stood, which has since been
\nsubstituted by Act 1 of 2005, dealt with the contents of Outline Development
\nPlan in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tContents of Outline Development Plan.-\n<\/p>\n
(1) An Outline Development Plan shall generally indicate
\nthe manner in which the development and improvement
\nof the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the
\nPlanning Authority are to be carried out and regulated.
\nIn particular it shall include, –\n<\/p>\n
(a)\ta general land use plan and zoning of land use for
\nresidential, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
\nrecreational, educational and other public
\npurposes;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tproposals for road and highways; and widening of
\nsuch roads and highways in congested areas;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tproposals for the reservation of land for the
\npurposes of the Union, any State, any local
\nauthority or any other authority established by law
\nin India;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tproposals for declaring certain areas as areas of
\nspecial control, development in such areas being
\nsubject to such regulations as may be made in
\nregard to building line, height of buildings, floor
\narea ratio, architectural features and such other
\nparticulars as may be prescribed;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\t such other proposal for public or other purposes as
\nmay from time to time be approved by the
\nPlanning Authority or directed by the State
\nGovernment in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.- “Building line” means the line up to
\nwhich the plinth of a building adjoining a street may
\nlawfully extend and includes the lines prescribed, if any,
\nin any scheme.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The following particulars shall be published
\nand sent to the State Government through the Director
\nalong with the Outline Development Plan, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\ta report of the surveys carried out by the Planning
\nAuthority before the preparation of such plan;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\ta report explaining the provisions of such plan;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tregulations in respect of each land use zone to
\nenforce the provisions of such plan and explaining
\nthe manner in which necessary permission for
\ndeveloping any land can be obtained from the
\nPlanning Authority;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\ta report of the stages by which it is proposed to
\nmeet the obligations imposed on the Planning
\nAuthority by such plan;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tan approximate estimate of the cost involved in the
\nacquisition of lands reserved for public purposes.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter III of the Act deals with preparation of Outline Development
\nPlan.(now styled as preparation of Master Plan)  Chapter IV deals with the
\nComprehensive Development Plan (now styled as “Enforcement of Master
\nPlan”).  Outline Development Plan is a one time plan.  It could be
\nsuperseded under Section 23 of the Act (since repealed).  Once the
\nComprehensive Development Plan has been prepared for any area, Section
\n25 (as it then existed) provided for revision of the Comprehensive
\nDevelopment Plan in every ten years.\n<\/p>\n
Section 14-A of the Act provides for change of land use from the
\nOutline Development Plan.  Section 14(1) thereof, as it then stood,  provided
\nthat every development in the area covered by the plan  subject to Section
\n14A shall conform to the provisions of the Act.  Section 14(2), however,
\nprovides that no change in the land use or development shall be made except
\nwith the written permission of the Planning Authority which shall be
\ncontained in the commencement certificate granted by the Planning
\nAuthority in the form prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
It is furthermore not in dispute that the first Comprehensive
\nDevelopment Plan was prepared in the year 1984, whereas the second
\nComprehensive Development Plan was prepared in the year 1995.  The
\nchange contemplated thereby  is only from one category of land use to
\nanother.  The land use indisputably is categorized into six categories, details
\nwhereof would be noticed later.\n<\/p>\n
 Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, which provides for a
\ndeemed grant, refers only to the change of permitted category.  It is
\nfurthermore not in dispute that by a notification dated 05.01.1995, the
\nComprehensive Development Plan was notified providing for Zoning of
\nLand Use and Regulations of the  BDA.  Under the heading “Residential
\nZone”, two sub clauses were made, viz. (a) uses that are permissible; (b)
\nuses that are permissible under special circumstances by the Authority.
\nRestaurant does not come within the purview of  Annexure II of the said
\nZoning Regulations i.e. in either of the aforementioned categories.  Schedule
\nI thereof sets out a list of service industries that are permissible in
\nResidential Zone (as a part of Residential building)\/Retails Business Zone.
\nThe Regulations framed were approved by the Government under Section
\n13(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS  OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS:\n<\/p>\n
   The Act prior to coming into force of Section 14-A of the Act
\ncontained two provisions for enabling change in land use.  The definition of
\n‘land use’ indisputably will have to be read with the Zoning Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
Section 14(1), as it then stood,  of the Act provided that every change
\nin land use and every development in the area covered by the Plan  subject to
\nSection 14A shall conform to the provisions of the Act.  Section 14(2),
\nhowever, provides that no such change in land use or development shall be
\nmade except with the written permission of the Planning Authority which
\nshall be contained in a commencement certificate in the form prescribed.
\nSection 15 provides for the procedure required to be followed where the
\nPlanning Authority is required to pass an order in terms of Section 14 of the
\nAct.  So far as changes of land use or development from the Outline
\nDevelopment Plan is concerned, the same would be subject to the procedure
\nlaid down in Section 14-A of the Act.  Outline Development Plan being a
\none time Plan, evidently sub-section (2) of Section 14 had no application.  It
\nis only for that purpose Section 14-A had to be introduced.  Section 14-A
\ncategorically states that change in the land use or development from the
\nOutline Development Plan must be necessitated by : (i)  topographical or
\ncartographical or other errors and omissions; (ii) due to failure to fully
\nindicate the details in the Plan or changes arising out of the implementation
\nof the proposals in Outline Development Plan; and (iii) circumstances
\nprevailing at any particular time by the enforcement of the Plan.\n<\/p>\n
The proviso appended to Section 14-A enumerates that : (i) such
\nchanges  should be one in public interest;  (ii) the changes proposed should
\nnot contravene any of the provisions of the Act or any other law governing
\nplanning, development or use of land within the local planning area; and (iii)
\nthe proposal for all such changes are published in one or more daily
\nnewspapers, having circulation in the area, inviting  objections from the
\npublic.   Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14 of the Act are applicable
\nmutatis mutandis to the change in land use or development from the Outline
\nDevelopment Plan.  Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that on receipt of
\nthe application for permission under Section 14, the Planning Authority shall
\ncause an enquiry to be made whereupon it may either grant or refuse a
\ncommencement certificate.  Sub-section (2) of Section 15 raises a legal
\nfiction as regard failure on the part of the Planning Authority to issue such
\ncertificate, as by reason thereof such certificate would be deemed to have
\nbeen granted.  The proviso appended thereto, however, provides that such
\nchange in land use or development for which such permission was sought
\nfor must be in conformity with the Outline Development Plan and the
\nregulation finally approved under sub-section (3) of Section 13.   The said
\nproviso applies to both  sub-sections (1) and (2).  By reason of the said
\nproviso, it is, therefore, explicitly clear that all such changes in the land use
\nmust conform both with the Outline Development Plan and the regulation
\nfinally approved under sub-section (3) of Section 13, which would in turn
\nmean the changes which are permissible for which no prior permission is
\nrequired and the changes which are permissible upon obtaining the requisite
\nsanction therefor.\n<\/p>\n
CHANGES OF USER:\n<\/p>\n
We have noticed hereinbefore that so far as running of a hotel in a
\nresidential zone is concerned, having regard to the Zoning Regulations, the
\nsame is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
The Zoning Regulations provide for use of land that are permitted and
\nmay be permitted under special circumstances by the authority in the local
\nplanning area of Bangalore.  Thus, even for the purpose of invoking clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of the Regulations affecting residential zone must be referable to the
\nspecial circumstances which were obtaining.  We may, at this stage take note
\nof explanation appended to Section 15.  In terms of the said explanation, the
\npower to grant necessary permission under Section 15 for a change of user
\nof land would include the power to grant permission for  retention on land of
\nany building or work constructed or carried out thereon before the date of
\nthe publication of the declaration of intention to prepare an Outline
\nDevelopment Plan under sub-section (1) of Section 10 or for the continuance
\nof any use of land instituted before the said date.\n<\/p>\n
JURISDICTION OF PLANNING AUTHORITY:\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Mr. Javali that in terms of the explanation
\nappended to Section 15, a power has been conferred upon the Planning
\nAuthority as regard change of user would mean that such a power can be
\nexercised irrespective of the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act. The said
\nsubmission  cannot be accepted for more reasons than  one.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may notice that in Special Deputy Commissioner v. Bhargavi
\nMadhavan [ILR 1987 Kar. 1260], a Division Bench of the Karnataka High
\nCourt held that only intra-category changes need not go to the Government.
\nHowever, in that case Section 14-A could not be noticed as the said
\nprovisions was brought out later.\n<\/p>\n
\tYet again in Sri Krishnapur Mutt, Udipi v. N. Vijayendra Shetty and
\nAnother [1992 (3) Kar. L.J. 326], S. Rajendra Babu, as the learned Chief
\nJustice then was, held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“In order to correctly comprehend the contentions
\nadvanced on either side, it is necessary to examine the
\nscheme of the Act.  Section 2(1b) defines ‘commerce’
\nand ‘commercial’ which mean carrying on any trade,
\nbusiness or profession, sale or exchange of goods of any
\ntype whatsoever, the running of, with a view to make
\nprofit, hospitals, nursing homes, infirmaries, sarais,
\neducational institutions, hotels restaurants, boarding
\nhouses not attached to educational institutions.  Section
\n2(1c) defines ‘development’ as carrying out of building,
\nengineering, mining, or other operations in, or, over or
\nunder land or the making of any material change in any
\nbuilding or land, or in the use of any building, or land
\nand includes sub-division of any land.  Under sub-section
\n(3) of Section 2 “land-use” is defined to mean the major
\nuse to which a plot of land is being used on any specified
\ndate.  Under Section 10 of the Act the Planning Authority
\nis required to publish a declaration in the Official Gazette
\nof its intention to prepare an outline development plan of
\nan area and in the present case such a plan has been
\npublished and the land in question has been shown to be
\na residential one.  Section 12 sets out, inter alia, that such
\nplan shall include a general land-use plan and zoning of
\nland-use for residential, commercial, industrial,
\nagricultural, recreational, educational and other public
\npurposes.  Thus, the outline development plan will only
\nset out the nature of the use to which the land is put viz.,
\nresidential, commercial or industrial or any other
\npurpose.  In the present case the same had been shown to
\nbe residential although on 19.9.1979 the nature of the
\nland-use was allowed to be changed to commercial for
\nconstruction of a shop.  Section 14(2) requires that
\nchange in the land-use or development referred to in sub-
\nsection (1) thereof shall be made only with the
\npermission of the Planning Authority.  The expression
\n‘development’ in this context means the same as defined
\nin Section 2(1c) of the Act referred to earlier.  Inasmuch
\nas in the present case there is no dispute as to the change
\nof land-use permitted on 19.9.1979 the question to be
\nconsidered now is whether the first  respondent could
\nhave utilized the land for the purpose of construction of a
\nrestaurant and a lodging house by altering the building
\nfrom a shop and an office premises and by putting up
\nadditional floors.  The concept of development provided
\nin the explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 14 does
\nnot refer to every change but refers only to building
\nactivity carried on or any material change in the use of
\nbuilding and other land.  Therefore, attention will have to
\nbe revetted and confined to the concept of material
\nchange in the present case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t“The restrictions imposed in the planning law
\nthough in public interest should be strictly interpreted
\nbecause they make an inroad into the rights of a private
\npersons to carry on his business by construction of a
\nsuitable building for the purpose and incidentally may
\naffect his fundamental right if too widely interpreted.
\nThe building bye-laws while sanctioning a plan will take
\ncare of what parking space should be provided in the area
\nand whether the building itself would have such
\nfacility”\n<\/p>\n
 The Planning Authority has no power to permit change in the land
\nuse from the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations.  Sub-section
\n(1) of Section 14, as it then existed,  categorically stated, that every change
\nin the land use, inter alia, must conform to the Outline Development Plan
\nand the Regulations which would indisputably mean that it must conform to
\nthe Zoning Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
The provisions of the Act are to be read with the Regulations, and so
\nread, the construction of Sections 14 and 15 will lead to only one conclusion,
\nnamely, such changes in the land use must be within the Outline
\nDevelopment Plan and the Zoning Regulations.  If running of a hotel or a
\nrestaurant was not permissible both under clauses (a) and (b) of the Zoning
\nRegulations in a residential area, such change in the land use could not have
\nbeen permitted under Sections 14 read with 15 of the Act.  It is precisely for
\nthat reason, Section 14-A was introduced.\n<\/p>\n
The words “subject to” used in Section 14 are of some significance.
\nThe said words must be given full effect to.  The meaning of the said words
\nhad been noticed in Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and Another
\n(2004) 3 SCC 1] in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“92. Furthermore, the expression “subject to” must be
\ngiven effect to.\n<\/p>\n
93. In Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., at p. \t1278,
\nthe expression “subject to” has been defined as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior,
\nobedient to; governed or affected by; provided
\nthat; provided; answerable for. Homan v.\n<\/p>\n
Employers Reinsurance Corpn.”\n<\/p>\n
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE STATE:\n<\/p>\n
The Comprehensive Development Plan of Bangalore comprises of six
\ncategories, namely, (i) residential; (ii) commercial; (iii)  industrial; (iv) parks
\n& open spaces; (v) public and semi public; and (vi) transportation.  All the
\nsix categories of land have been distinctly delineated therein. Each category
\nof the lands, however, contains several sub-categories.  Change of user  from
\none sub-category to another within the category is permitted in terms of
\nregulations.  Plot No.585 where the Respondent No.6 is running a restaurant
\nis indisputably within a residential zone and abutting a park.  The order
\nissued by the State of Karnataka dated 11.10.1999 reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“After considering the proposal under Section
\n14A(1)(a) of the Karnataka Urban & Rural Planning Act,
\n1961, the Government has accorded permission for
\nconversion of the land area measuring 2275 sft. Site
\nNo.585, 5th Block, 10th Main, Jayanagar, Bangalore from
\nresidential purposes to commercial (restaturant\/complex)
\npurposes, subject to the following conditions.\n<\/p>\n
1)\tThe revised land conversion charges shall be
\nobtained by the Authority.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tTo make suitable conversion as required
\nunder Intensive Development Plan.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tConditions imposed by the Authority.”\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent No.6, the Development Authority and the State of
\nKarnataka, therefore, understood in no uncertain terms that the change in the
\nland use from residential purpose to commercial purpose in respect of 2275
\nsq. ft., in Jayanagar must conform to the provisions of Section 14-A of the
\nAct and not Sections 14 and 15 thereof.  A bare perusal of the said order of
\nsanction would demonstrate that the same did  not disclose as to for what
\npurpose and on what ground the same had been sanctioned.  None of  the
\ningredients contained in Section 14-A of the Act had been referred to.  We
\nhave not been shown as to why the BDA recommended and sought the
\nGovernment approval for conversion of land use  of 2275 sq. ft. in  Plot No.
\n585 from residential to commercial (restaurant complex).  Admittedly, such
\na change in the land use was not occasioned owing to topographical,
\ncartographic or other errors or omissions; or due to failure to fully indicate
\nthe details in the Plan or changes arising out of the implementation of the
\nproposal in Outline Development Plan.  The only submission made before us
\nis that action on the part of the BDA and the State in granting sanction
\nwould come within the purview of the circumstances prevailing at any
\nparticular time.  What was the circumstance necessitating such change of
\nuser has not been spelt out in the sanction order.  Furthermore, none of the
\nother requirements of law stated in the proviso appended thereto had been
\ncomplied with.  We do not know as to what was the public interest involved
\nin directing such change of land use.\n<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that the Commissioner, BDA, while
\nforwarding his recommendations to the Principal Secretary of Urban
\nDevelopment Department in terms of his letter dated 29.06.1999 mentioned
\nthat on 01.06.1999 the Commissioner and the Town Planning Member upon
\nexamination of the surrounding areas noticed that the site is located in a
\nprominent place and opined that if the site is converted to commercial
\npurposes, the volume of traffic may increase causing parking problem and
\nobstructing the traffic and on the said premise stated that the application may
\nhave to be rejected.  It is nowhere stated in the said letter as to how the
\nPlanning Authority intended to tackle the said problem.  \tParagraph 4 of the
\nsaid letter did not reveal as to how the mind of the Authority was applied
\nhaving regard to its earlier views that conversion of the said plot to
\ncommercial use may give rise to  traffic problem.  It is, therefore, apparent
\nthat the objections which were raised and the basic issues which were
\nrequired to be dealt with by the said Authority did not receive serious
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
JUDICIAL REVIEW:\n<\/p>\n
It is now well-known that the concept of error of law includes the
\ngiving of reasons that are bad in law or (where there is a duty to give reason)
\ninconsistent,  unintelligible or substantially inadequate. [See De Smith’s
\nJudicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th Edn. p. 286]<\/p>\n
\tThe Authority, therefore, posed unto itself a wrong question.  What,
\ntherefore, was necessary to be considered by the BDA was whether the
\ningredients contained in Section 14-A of the Act were fulfilled and whether
\nthe requirements of the proviso appended thereto are satisfied.  If the same
\nhad not been satisfied, the requirements of the law must be held to have not
\nbeen satisfied. If there had been no proper application of mind as regard the
\nrequirements of law, the State and the Planning Authority must be held to
\nhave misdirected themselves in law which would vitiate the impugned
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(2005) 7 SCC 627 = 2005 (7) SCALE 386], this Court referring to Cholan
\nRoadways  Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam<\/a>  [(2005) 3 SCC 241], held  :\n<\/p>\n
“Even a judicial review on facts in certain situations
\nmay be available. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.\n<\/p>\n
Thirugnanasambandam,, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“34.  It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial
\nauthority must pose unto itself a correct question so
\nas to arrive at a correct finding of fact. A wrong
\nquestion posed leads to a wrong answer. In this case,
\nfurthermore, the misdirection in law committed by
\nthe Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did
\nnot apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur which
\nwas relevant for the purpose of this case and, thus,
\nfailed to take into consideration a relevant factor and
\nfurthermore took into consideration an irrelevant
\nfact not germane for determining the issue, namely,
\nthat the passengers of the bus were mandatorily
\nrequired to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal
\nfurther failed to apply the correct standard of proof
\nin relation to a domestic enquiry, which is
\n‘preponderance of probability’ and applied the
\nstandard of proof required for a criminal trial. A case
\nfor judicial review was, thus, clearly made out.\n<\/p>\n
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
\njudicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the
\nHome Deptt.14) Reference in this connection may
\nalso be made to an interesting article by Paul P.
\nCraig, Q.C. titled ‘Judicial Review, Appeal and
\nFactual Error’ published in 2004 Public Law,
\np. 788.”\n<\/p>\n
[See also Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh<\/a>  (2005) 3
\nSCC 232  paras 23 & 24] \t\t <\/p>\n
\tThe order passed by the statutory authority, it is trite, must be judged
\non the basis of the contents thereof and not as explained in affidavit [See
\nBangalore Development Authority & Others  v.  R. Hanumaiah & Others<\/a>
\n[2005 (8) SCALE 80].\n<\/p>\n
In Hanumaiah (supra), this Court has categorically held that BDA
\nhaving been constituted for  specific purposes, it may not take any action
\nwhich would defeat such purpose.   It was observed :
\n\t“Bangalore Development Authority has been
\nconstituted for specific purposes. It cannot take any
\naction which would defeat such purpose. The State also
\nordinarily cannot interfere in the day to day functioning
\nof a statutory authority. It can ordinarily exercise its
\npower under Section 65 of the 1976 Act where a policy
\nmatter is involved. It has not been established that the
\nChief Minister had the requisite jurisdiction to issue such
\na direction. Section 65 of the 1976 Act contemplates an
\norder by the State. Such an order must conform to the
\nprovisions of Article  166 of the Constitution of India.”\n<\/p>\n
It was further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Directions issued by the Chief Minister in the
\npresent case would not be to carry out the purpose of the
\nAct rather it would be to destroy the same. Such a
\ndirection would not have the sanctity of law. Directions
\nto release the lands would be opposed to the statute as the
\npurpose of the Act and object of constituting the BDA is
\nfor the development of the city and improve the lives of
\nthe persons living therein. The authority vested with the
\npower has to act reasonably and rationally and in
\naccordance with law to carry out the legislative intent and
\nnot to destroy it. Direction issued by the Chief Minister
\nrun counter to and are destructive of the purpose for
\nwhich the BDA was created. It is opposed to the object of
\nthe Act and therefore, bad in law”\n<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION:\n<\/p>\n
   \tWe are for the foregoing reasons unable to accept the submission of
\nMr. Javali that the Act provides for two different schemes, one contained in
\nSections 14 and 15 and another under Section 14-A of the Act.  We are of
\nthe opinion that both the provisions are operating in  different fields.  It is no
\ndoubt true that Respondent No.6 herein applied for change of user from
\nresidential to commercial on 04.01.1999 whereafter a publication was made
\nin three newspapers inviting objections from the local residents. \tIt is
\nalso true that the Respondent No.6 herein acted on the basis of the plan
\nsanctioned in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may furthermore be true that the Respondent No.6 was accorded
\npermission as far back as on 20.12.1999, whereas the writ petition was filed
\non 15.07.2002.  However, we have also noticed that in the meanwhile, the
\nRespondent No.6 committed some other violations.  Had the violation in the
\nmatter of change in user from residential to commercial been a minor one,
\nprobably, this Court might not have interfered but the State of Karnataka and
\nthe BDA having committed serious violation of the Zoning Regulations  as
\nalso Section 14-A of the Act, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may further be true that the Respondent No.6 had invested a heavy
\namount but his investment in the matter of construction of a building would
\nremain as it is.  The Respondent No.6 can utilize the premises held by him
\nwithin the purview of the permissible user as contained in the Zoning
\nRegulations referred to hereinbefore.  If he intends to use the same for such a
\npurpose for which the permission of the BDA is necessary, there is no doubt
\nin our mind, that the BDA will consider his request sympathetically.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High
\nCourt cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.
\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 938 of 2006 PETITIONER: S.N. Chandrashekar and Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.K. Balasubramanyan JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5810,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\",\"name\":\"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006"},"wordCount":5810,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006","name":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-29T05:54:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-chandrashekar-and-anr-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-2-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}