Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the planning authority’s power to levy betterment and related charges for development of an industrial plot allotted by KIADB. Industrial-area acquisition did not displace town-planning regulation; the two statutes served different fields and required harmonious operation. The allottee was directed to pay Rs.1,48,29,173 with 6% interest from the demand within two months, with 12% interest thereafter on the accrued amount in default.
Issues
- Whether industrial-area allotment excluded town-planning permission and betterment charges.
- Whether the industrial-development statute displaced the town-planning statute as a special enactment.
- What payment and interest directions followed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1-c) and 18(1), Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961Development extends beyond change of land use. Permission for qualifying development of industrial land or buildings could attract the prescribed betterment fee. (¶¶ 15, 18, 23)
- Section 76-M, Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961Its overriding provision reinforced that development required compliance with the planning regime notwithstanding approvals under other laws. Industrial allotment did not itself exempt the land. (¶¶ 19, 27, 31)
- Section 47, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966The overriding clause did not extinguish the planning authority’s separate statutory role because the enactments operated in different fields without the asserted inconsistency. (¶¶ 21, 22, 31, 32)
Held
- Acquisition and allotment for industrial use did not dispense with the planning authority’s development controls. The levy under Section 18 covered development as well as change of use. (¶¶ 22, 23, 27, 30, 31)
- The earlier exemption-related circular had been revoked after omission of the relevant statutory provision. No exemption for these industrial plots displaced the planning authority’s power. (¶¶ 24, 27)
- The statutes had different objects and areas of operation and were to be harmonised. The special-law-over-general-law maxim did not justify excluding town-planning regulation. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
- The allottee’s response had disputed the rate and classification rather than the authority’s competence. Its industrial status did not excuse payment of lawful charges when obtaining plan approval. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36)
- The allottee must pay Rs.1,48,29,173 with 6% interest from 17 September 1998 within two months. In default, 12% interest would apply thereafter on the accrued amount. (¶ 37)
Result
Appeal allowed and Division Bench judgment set aside. Payment of Rs.1,48,29,173 with 6% interest from demand directed within two months, failing which 12% interest thereafter on the accrued amount.