H. KASHINATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

H. KASHINATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

The lease in favour of respondent No. 4 is set aside as it violates the purpose for which the site was earmarked under the Comprehensive Development Plan; activities of respondent No. 4 do not qualify as public, semi-public purpose or civic amenity under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, relevant bye-laws and planning statutes.

Parties
Appellant: H. Kashinath and Ors.; Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment and Order Dated 18.7.94 in W.p. No. 24250 of 1991
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Land Use Classification, Civic Amenity, Lease, Public Vs Semi Public Purpose
Property Law Administrative Law Urban Planning Land Use Classification Civic Amenity Lease Public Vs Semi Public Purpose

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. Kashinath and Ors.

Appellant

State of Karnataka and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment and Order Dated 18.7.94 in W.p. No. 24250 of 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lease of land reserved for public or semi-public purpose to a society for building a theatre for film artists violates the Comprehensive Development Plan?
  2. 2 Whether activities of a society to promote welfare of film artists constitute a public, semi-public or civic amenity under relevant statutes?

Ratio Decidendi

The lease in favour of respondent No. 4 is set aside as it violates the purpose for which the site was earmarked under the Comprehensive Development Plan; activities of respondent No. 4 do not qualify as public, semi-public purpose or civic amenity under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, relevant bye-laws and planning statutes.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Lease in favour of respondent No. 4 is set aside.
  • Respondents restrained from carrying out any construction activity on the said open space allotted to respondent No. 4.