Defending the Akrama-Sakrama scheme, the State government has informed the Karnataka High Court that similar laws made for “one-time” regularisation of certain types of unauthorised developments and constructions in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat were upheld by the courts.
The government also clarified that it is for the first time in the State that the one-time measure for regularisation of some types of unauthorised constructions and development is being offered. The statement in this regard was filed by the government in response to a PIL petition, filed by Citizens Forum for Mangalore Development, which has questioned the legality of the Act and the Rules made in 2013-14 for the purpose of regularisation. Making it clear that a law for regularisation was enacted in 1991, the government said that no regularisation was carried out then as the rules for implementation were not framed.
Hence, the government claimed, the present scheme for regularisation can’t be in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictum that allowed one-time regularisation in the case of Consumer Action Group and another Vs State of Tamil Nadu and others in 2000.
“Popular demand”
Terming that the scheme includes checks and balances to prevent damage to the environment and adverse impact on the immediate neighbourhood, the government stated that the “petitioners have taken upon themselves a cause by undermining the popular demand and are becoming a hindrance to the solution of a problem that has engaged the attention of successive State governments.”
The government claimed that the “problem of unregulated growth in urban areas and the consequential unauthorised constructions is not unique to Mangaluru or Bengaluru for that matter.”
“Though every State has a statute to regulate town planning, which is based on a model circulated by the Union of India, every State is faced with this problem of unauthorised constructions, especially in the fast developing cities and towns,” the government has submitted to the court.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy adjourned further hearing on the PIL to Thursday.
Tells HC that courts have upheld similar schemes of T.N. and Gujarat
