Bangalore Development Authority vs. Air Craft Employees Coop. Society (2012)

This case involves the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the Aircraft Employees Cooperative Society and revolves around several significant legal issues, including the constitutionality of a legislative provision under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the “1976 Act”). Below is a detailed summary of the case:

Case Overview

Appellant: Bangalore Development Authority
Respondent: Aircraft Employees Cooperative Society
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, G.S. Singhvi
Date Decided: January 24, 2012
Relevant Provisions: Article 14, 265, 300A of the Indian Constitution

Factual Background

The case arises as an appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had ruled on several writ petitions filed by the respondents, Aircraft Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). The central issue in the petitions was the contention that Section 32(5A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (referred to as the “1976 Act”) was violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Equality.

The High Court declared that Section 32(5A) of the 1976 Act was indeed violative of Article 14 and consequently void and inoperative. As a result of this decision, the High Court quashed all conditions incorporated under orders passed by the BDA, which sanctioned residential layout plans or work orders that required the respondents to pay various charges. Additionally, the High Court ordered the immediate refund of any amounts collected under these conditions.

Developments Leading to the Case

Population Growth and Urban Development

Between 1970 and 1980, Bangalore experienced a significant increase in population, which strained the city’s public amenities such as roads, water supply, and electricity. To address the growing needs, including the worsening traffic situation, the government drafted and approved new development schemes for Bangalore in 1984. These plans included the augmentation of water supply and the creation of a ring road.

The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) proposed the Cauvery Water Supply Scheme, aimed at supplying an additional 270 million liters per day (MLD) of water to meet the city’s growing demand. The project was estimated to cost ₹240 crores. After analyzing the situation, the state government approved the proposal and directed the BDA to contribute ₹30 crores to the BWSSB over three years (from 1987-88 to 1989-90). This contribution was to be collected by imposing an additional water supply component charge of ₹10,000 per site on all layouts formed by the BDA.

Increased Levies and Proposed Projects

As directed, the BDA began collecting the amount per site. However, the levy was later increased to ₹1 lakh per acre. By 1992, it was evident that the BDA had not developed and distributed sites as expected. Consequently, the BDA’s Commissioner proposed that the contribution towards the Cauvery Scheme should also be borne by those applying for changes in land use and private layouts developed by house-building societies and major housing projects. The state government accepted this suggestion and issued an order to levy a tax of ₹2 lakh per acre.

In 1992, the BDA also planned to construct a 63-kilometer-long Outer Ring Road and a 3.5-kilometer-long Intermediate Ring Road, with a projected cost of ₹115 crores, potentially rising to ₹130 crores. While 37 kilometers of the Outer Ring Road would pass through BDA layouts, the remainder would traverse land outside these layouts. The cost of constructing the sections within BDA layouts was to be covered by charging the allottees of the sites, while financial assistance for the remainder was sought from the World Bank. It was later decided that the partial cost burden would be shared by the beneficiaries of private layouts. Similar to the Cauvery Scheme, a surcharge for the Ring Road was to be levied at the rate of ₹1 lakh per acre on sites formed by the BDA and private housing societies.

Specific Case of the Society

The Society sought permission to develop a layout on 324 acres and 30 guntas of land in Singasandra and Kudlu villages, Surjapur Hobli, and Begur Hobli. The BDA approved the proposal but imposed conditions requiring the Society to pay ₹2 lakh per acre towards the Cauvery Scheme and ₹1 lakh per acre as a Ring Road Surcharge. Additionally, the BDA stipulated that any civil work performed by the respondents must be carried out under its supervision. This decision was communicated to the Society in a letter dated 12th January 1993.

Feeling aggrieved by these conditions, the Society filed a writ petition challenging the imposition of ₹2 lakhs per acre for the Cauvery Scheme and ₹1 lakh per acre as the Ring Road Surcharge, arguing that these conditions were unfair.

Grounds of Challenge by the Respondent

The Society challenged the order on multiple grounds, including:

Selective Application of the Government Order: The Society argued that the government order was applicable only to sites formed by the BDA, and not to private house-building societies. This selective application was purportedly due to the BWSSB’s belief that it would be impractical to provide water supply and underground drainage systems to private layouts, forcing these societies to make alternative arrangements for water supply.
Limited Scope of the Cauvery Scheme: The Society contended that the Cauvery Scheme was designed to meet the needs of residents within the municipal area and a few new layouts close to the city, not for broader application.
Absence of Legal Provision in BWSSB Act: The Society argued that there was no provision in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1964, allowing BWSSB to pass on the capital costs of executing schemes to private house-building societies. The law did not authorize BWSSB to recover costs from these societies.
Lack of Authority under the 1976 Act: The Society claimed that the 1976 Act did not empower the BDA to transfer the burden of costs related to the Cauvery Scheme to private layouts.
Excessive Revenue Collection: The Society pointed out that the government would collect ₹600 crores from the BDA alone if it imposed charges of ₹1 lakh or ₹2 lakh per acre, even though the BDA’s initial contribution was fixed at ₹30 crores.
Violation of Article 265: The Society argued that the condition for demanding ₹1 lakh and ₹2 lakh per acre towards the Cauvery Scheme was against Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which states that no tax shall be levied or collected without the authority of law.
Lack of Legal Authority for Ring Road Surcharge: The Society contended that the sanction of ₹1 lakh per acre as a Ring Road Surcharge was not authorized by any law. Therefore, neither the state nor the BDA could impose such a burden on private layouts without ensuring that the Ring Road would benefit the members of the house-building societies.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had to address several critical legal issues, including:

Constitutionality of Section 32(5A): Whether Section 32(5A) of the 1976 Act was violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Excessive Delegation: Whether Section 32(5A) involved an excessive delegation of legislative power.
Nature of the Charges: Whether the charges levied under the Cauvery Scheme amounted to a tax, thereby violating Article 265 of the Constitution.
Excessive Charges: Whether the BDA had collected charges in excess of its contribution towards the Cauvery Scheme from the Society and other allottees of sites in the layouts prepared by it.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

Presumption of Constitutionality

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that a statutory provision is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless it is proven otherwise. The burden of proof lies on the person alleging discrimination. In this case, the Society failed to provide a strong factual foundation to demonstrate that Section 32(5A) violated Article 14. The High Court had erroneously declared Section 32(5A) as unconstitutional without sufficient evidence to support its conclusion.

The Court referred to several landmark judgments, including Charanjit Lal Chowdhuri vs. Union of India (1950) and Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958), which upheld the presumption of constitutionality. The Court reiterated that a law could be constitutional even if it applies to a single person, and discrimination in law is presumed to be based on adequate grounds unless proven otherwise.

Hostile Discrimination and Urban Development

The Supreme Court acknowledged the unexpected population growth in Bangalore and the necessity for the BDA to augment civic facilities. The imposition of charges for the Cauvery Scheme and the Ring Road Surcharge was part of a policy decision to ensure the availability of resources for urban development. The Court held that the High Court’s observation that restricting the burden of expenses to allottees of sites developed after 1987 violated Article 14 was incorrect.

Excessive Delegation

On the issue of excessive delegation, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgments, including Devi Das Gopal Krishnan vs. State of Punjab (1967) and Jyoti Pershad vs. The Administrator for Union Territory of Delhi (1961). The Court recognized that in modern governance, it is often impossible for the legislature to anticipate every detail, and therefore, broad guidelines are provided, leaving the implementation details to the authorities.

In this case, the Court found that Section 32(5A) provided sufficient guidelines for the BDA to impose charges and that there was no excessive delegation of legislative power.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s

Post Views: 110