Judgment :- 1. In these cases, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 7.6.2011 whereby the first respondent has refused to recall the sanction plan bearing L.P.No.(JC)L.P.No.546/2010-11 dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure ‘H’) issued by the third respondent in favour of the fourth respondent, for quashing the sanction plan at Annexure ‘A’ and for certain other reliefs. 2. The 4th respondent is the owner of the property bearing No.41/7, 15th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-3. She had made an application to the third respondent for sanction of the plan to put up construction thereon. The third respondent issued a sanction plan as per Annexure ‘H’ dated 16.9.2010 in favour of the fourth respondent permitting her to put up construction of a multistoried commercial complex comprising of basement, ground and three upper floors and a terrace. The petitioners filed a representation at Annexure ‘J’ dated 16.11.2010 contending that the said plan is violative of the Zonal Regulation and requested the second respondent to cancel the same. Since the said representation was not considered by the second respondent, the petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10931/2011 and 11957 to 12027/2011 for a mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the same. This Court by order dated 24.3.2011 disposed of the writ petitions by observing that it is for the Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) to consider the said representation in accordance with law and in terms of Section 443(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) as well as under the relevant Regulation. Since the second respondent did not consider the representation pursuant to the order referred to above, the petitioners once again filed W.P.Nos.17567 to 17591/2011 for quashing the impugned sanction plan and for a mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 16.11.2010. This Court passed an order dated 26.5.2011 directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation referred to above after granting the contesting parties an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the first respondent has considered the matter and has passed the order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 31.5.2011 holding that the sanction plan at Annexure ‘H’ is in order. 3. Accordingly, the first respondent has considered the matter and has passed the order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 31.5.2011 holding that the sanction plan at Annexure ‘H’ is in order. 3. Sri K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the property in question is situated in the ‘Residential (Mixed) Zone’ of the Zoning of land use and Regulations of the Revised Master Plan, 2015 (for short ‘Zoning Regulations’). The ‘Ancillary Use as Main Use’ is permissible on the plots of total dimension varying from 240 sq.mtrs. to 1000 sq.mtrs, subject to the property abutting a main road with a minimum width of 18 mtrs. ‘Ancillary Use as Main Use’ is not permissible in a property, which is in excess of thousand sq.mtrs. in dimension. The object of allowing use of smaller sized properties for Ancillary Use as Main use is to permit housing small establishments falling under C-3, I-2, U-4 and T2. The permissible land use in these categories clearly indicate that these are meant to house small establishments with a view to obviate those living in the neighbourhood to travel over a long distance to reach these amenities. The use of the property of larger dimension wholly for Ancillary Use defeats the whole object of orderly planning of the city. Such use of property in a ‘residential area’ for ‘non-residential commercial purpose’ will cause disturbance to the peace and tranquility for those living in the neighbourhood, cause traffic congestion and burden the public amenities. The properties in excess of one thousand sq.mtrs. located in residential (mixed) zone, cannot be wholly used for anything other than ‘residential’. Ignoring the said object, the third respondent has granted permission to the 4th respondent to use the said property entirely for commercial purpose, which is wholly illegal besides being in violation of Revised Master Plan, 2015. The first respondent has erroneously applied the provisions of Chapter 4.1 (Residential Main) to the instant case when it is apparent that there is no disagreement between the parties that the said property lies within an area classified as ‘Residential (Mixed)’ Zone and not a ‘Residential (Main)’ Zone because the property admittedly measures more than thousand sq.mtrs. and it admittedly is situated in residential mixed zone as per Regulation 4.2 of the Zoning Regulations. and it admittedly is situated in residential mixed zone as per Regulation 4.2 of the Zoning Regulations. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in K.RAMADAS SHENOY VS. THE CHIEF OFFICERS, TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, UDUPI & OTHERS- AIR 1974 SC 2177 , B.K.SRINIVASAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS- AIR 1987 SC 1059 , STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER VS. H.V.HOTELS PVT.LTD & ANOTHER- AIR 2007 SC 1126 and PRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. & OTHERS VS. STATE OF ASSAM & OTHERS- AIR 2010 SC 1030 . He submits that the Rules, Regulations and bye-laws are made by the development authorities taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is the bounden duty of the citizens to obey and it is the bounden duty of the Corporation to sanction the plan in accordance with such Rules. If the 4th respondent is permitted to put up construction in terms of the sanction plan issued by the Corporation, it would amount to nullification of the Rules themselves. The Corporation should act in aid of the building bye-laws. It shall not sanction the plans contrary to the building bye-laws. 4. On the other hand, Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has sought to justify the impugned order. It is argued that the property is situated in ‘Residential (Mixed) Zone’. The road width is 20.8 mtrs. And the permissible land use is as contemplated under Regulation 4.2.2. Some parts of Malleshwaram area have predominantly residential land use falling under the ‘Residential (Mixed) Zone’. As per Regulation 4.1.2, the ancillary land use category is C2, I-2 and U-3. Since the plot size is more than 240 sq.mtrs. having frontage of 10 mtrs., or more and the abutting road is more than 18.0 mtrs., in width, the ancillary land use can be used as main use. Since the plot size is above 1000 sq.mtrs. and below 2000 sq.mtrs. Table 10(3) is applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the plan sanctioned by the third respondent is in accordance with the Revised Master Plan, 2015. 5. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 contends that the plan was sanctioned on 16.9.2010. Immediately thereafter, the 4th respondent has commenced the construction. The writ petitions were filed on 15.6.2011. Hence, the plan sanctioned by the third respondent is in accordance with the Revised Master Plan, 2015. 5. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 contends that the plan was sanctioned on 16.9.2010. Immediately thereafter, the 4th respondent has commenced the construction. The writ petitions were filed on 15.6.2011. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. It is further contended that the property in question was a part of the joint family properties belonging to H.V.Narayana Rao, the father of Ramaswamy Valpanur. Subsequently, H.V.Narayana Rao and his children executed a registered partition deed dated 28.6.1968 whereunder the schedule property was jointly allotted to H.V.Narayana Rao and V.N.Nanjundayya with a stipulation that after the life time of either of them, the survivor shall be the absolute owner of the said property. As H.V.Narayana Rao predeceased his son V.N.Nanjundayya, V.N.Nanjundayya became absolute owner of the property. After the death of V.N.Nanjundayya, Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya inherited the said property as his wife and sole surviving heir. As V.N.Nanjundayya and Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya did not have any issues, Ramaswami Velpanur falsely laid a claim over a portion of the schedule premises and filed a suit in O.S.No.358/1999 for partition and separate possession of his alleged share. Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya was tired of the harassment of Ramaswami and was desirous of selling the undisputed portion of the schedule property. Therefore, the 4th respondent purchased the undisputed portion of the schedule property from her on 12.7.2000. Subsequently, there was a compromise between Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya and Ramaswamy Velpanur with respect to the disputed portion. On 6.4.2002, the 4th respondent along with her parents, brother and grand mother purchased the said portion thereby becoming the absolute owner of the entire schedule premises. The schedule property was purchased from Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya. The brother in law of Smt.Chitra Nanjundayya viz., Ramaswamy Velpanur was highly incensed by the purchase of the property by the 4th respondent and her relatives, the said Ramaswamy Velpanur sent word to the 4th respondent through acquaintances of the 4th respondent’s father stating that he wishes to purchase the property. Since the said request was turned down, he has turned hostile and has vowed to harass the 4th respondent and her parents. Since the said request was turned down, he has turned hostile and has vowed to harass the 4th respondent and her parents. It is in this background that initially he filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the BDA granting special permission for construction o the hospital. The said writ petition came to be allowed by this Court. Thereafter, the BDA refused to grant the special permission. Subsequent to the above order of the BDA, Ramaswamy sent words through acquaintances of the father of the 4th respondent that he is eager to purchase the property in question and asked the 4th respondent and her father to sell the schedule property. This was turned down. It is because of this the present writ petitions have been engineered by the said Ramaswamy. Petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 7 are the sisters of Sri Ramaswamy, petitioner No.6 is the brother in law of Ramaswamy and petitioner No.2, 5 and 6 are cousins/nephews of Ramaswamy. The other are neighbours and friends of Ramaswamy and his above referred relatives. 6. It is further contended that the schedule property is situated in a residential mixed area with a road width of over 20.8 mtrs. Since the road width abutting the plot is 20.08 mtrs, the 4th respondent is entitled to put up a building for commercial use as specified in C-2 and C-3 category. In fact, the building that is being put up by the 4th respondent is an office building which falls in C-2 category and such building can be put up even in purely residential zone/area viz., Residential (Main). The BBMP has been sanctioning the plans on the basis of such an interpretation viz., if the road width is more than 18 mtrs. In a mixed residential area, commercial buildings falling in C-3 category, service industries, (I-2), T-2 and U-2 uses are permissible in respect of residential plots. Since the property in question is situated in a mixed residential zone and the road abutting the schedule property is in excess of 18 mtrs., the 4th respondent is entitled to construct the office building. It is argued that there is no bar in the Zoning Regulations to put up commercial complex to locate business offices on the lands situated in residential mixed zone. The buildings under residential main is higher category will include the lower category. It is argued that there is no bar in the Zoning Regulations to put up commercial complex to locate business offices on the lands situated in residential mixed zone. The buildings under residential main is higher category will include the lower category. It is further contended that the 15th cross road is the broadest road in Malleshwaram and connects Margosa road and 8th Main Road, which are situated in commercial Zone. There are lot of commercial activities in these roads. Strong reliance is placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the decisions of the Apex Court in CAPT.KARAN VASWANI VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS- (2000) 3 SCC 602 , N.SURESH NATHAN & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS-1992 SUPP (1) SCC 584, and C.I.T., BOMBAY VS. M/S GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.- (1992) 3 SCC 326 , to contend that when the Corporation has consistently understood and applied the bye-law in a particular manner, the Court should not interfere with the practice already been followed by it. An interpretation consistently given over the years and accepted and acted by the Corporation may not normally be upset even though a different view of law may reasonably be possible unless the new perceptions and circumstances warrant fresh look. 7. It is further contended that the construction placed by the Court on statutory provisions has to be meaningful. The law cannot be interpreted so as to cause oppression or be unjust. The restrictions imposed in the planning law though in public interest should be strictly construed. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in KAILASH CHAND & ANOTHER VS. DHARAM DASS- (2005) 5 SCC 375 , CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN VS. PURE INDUSTRIAL COKE & CHEMICALS LTD., & OTHERS- (2007) 8 SCC 705 and SRI KRISHNAPUR MUTT, UDUPI VS. N.VIJAYENDRA SHETTY & ANOTHER-1992(3) KLJ 326. He prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is beneficial to briefly refer to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Planning Act’). N.VIJAYENDRA SHETTY & ANOTHER-1992(3) KLJ 326. He prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is beneficial to briefly refer to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Planning Act’). The Planning Act was enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature for regulating the planned growth of land use and its development and for the making and execution of the town planning schemes in the State of Karnataka with a view to provide civic and social amenities for the people in the State contributing towards balanced use of the land and to provide for healthy environment, hygiene and general standard of living. In addition to the aforementioned laudable objective, the Planning Act has created the planning authority, which is given the power to conduct a survey, locate the area for development by declaring it as a planning area. Section 9 of the Act as amended by Act No.1/2005 w.e.f. 14.2.2005 provides for the preparation of Master Plan. Section 10 provides for declaration of intention of making Master Plan. Section 11 lays down the power of the Director or the Planning authority or any public servant or person duly authorised or appointed under the Planning Act, the power of entry for carrying out surveys for preparing the Master Plan. Section 13 deals with the approval of the Master Plan. Section 13-D states that atleast once in every ten years from the date on which the Master Plan has come into force, subject to the provisions of Section 13-C, the planning authority may and if directed so by the State Government carry out fresh survey of the area within its jurisdiction with a view to revising the existing Master Plan. The Zoning Regulations made under Section 13-D are thus statutory instruments and therefore, in interpreting those Regulations, the Courts should give content and meaning to every word of the Regulations. The Courts cannot by interpretive processes reduce a term or word in the Regulation as surplussage or otiose or redundant. The Master Plan and the Regulations are not distinct from each other. The Plan is the basis for the Regulation and the Regulations are what make the plan effective. Without the Regulations, the plan virtually becomes a dead letter. 9. The Courts cannot by interpretive processes reduce a term or word in the Regulation as surplussage or otiose or redundant. The Master Plan and the Regulations are not distinct from each other. The Plan is the basis for the Regulation and the Regulations are what make the plan effective. Without the Regulations, the plan virtually becomes a dead letter. 9. As stated above, Section 13-D of the Planning Act stipulates revision of comprehensive Master Plan atleast once in every 10 years from the date on which the Master Plan has come into force. The revised comprehensive development plan, 1995 approved by Government Order dated 5.1.1995 required to be revised since its currency was expiring. The revision of Master Plan was necessitated in view of the urban infrastructure, housing and commercial activities calling for zonal changes to facilitate orderly development of city, taking into consideration the possible future goal for the next one decade. Accordingly, the revised Master Plan 2015 for the local planning area of Bangalore was approved by the Government vide G.O.No.UDD.540.BEM.AA.SE.2004 dated 25.6.2007. 10. Volume-3 of the Revised Master Plan, 2015 contains the Zoning of land use and Regulations. The Zoning Regulations has made classification of land use as under: “B. Classification of Land use Zones: RESIDENTIAL (R) COMMERCIAL (C) INDUSTRIAL (I) PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC (P&SP) TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION (T&T) PUBLIC UTILITIES (PU) PARK AND OPEN SPACE (P) UNCLASSIFIED (UC) AGRICULTURELAND(AG)” 11. Chapter 2.0 contains the list of land use categories permissible in various zones, which are as under: “Land uses are grouped according to the nature and intensity of use in an ascending manner. For e.g. C-4: indicates C=Commercial and 4 the order within the category. The C-4 list includes all land uses permissible specific to C-4 and the lower order uses of C3, C-2 and C-1 unless specifically mentioned. The Various codes uses include: R : Residential C : Commercial: C-1 to C-6 I : Industrial I-1 to I-4 T : Transportation : T-1 to T-4 U :Public and Semi Public : U1 to U4. Though the various uses are listed, the corresponding space standards for buildings/uses are to be referred. The two main parameters are minimum size of Plot and the Minimum width of Road.” 12. Though the various uses are listed, the corresponding space standards for buildings/uses are to be referred. The two main parameters are minimum size of Plot and the Minimum width of Road.” 12. From the scheme of the Zoning Regulations, it is clear that while considering the application for grant of sanction plan within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, the authority concerned has to first identify the land use zone within which the construction of a building is proposed. Chapter 2.0 provides for land use categories permissible in various zones. Chapter 4 contains the land use pattern in each of the zones. If the land falls within a particular zone, it has to be used as provided in the said zone. Thus, if the property lies within an area classified as ‘residential (mixed)’, zone, a plan has to be sanctioned to put up construction thereon under Regulation 4.2. 13. Regulation 4.2 deals with land use in residential (mixed) zone, which is as under: “RESIDENTIAL (MIXED 4.2.1) Description Main features of ‘Mixed Land Use’ areas are those where employment, shopping and residential land uses will be integrated in a compact urban form, at higher development intensities and will be pedestrian-oriented and highly accessible by public transit. Mixed use areas will foster community interaction by providing focus on community facilities. The design and development of mixed use activity areas provide opportunities to create and/or maintain a special community identity and a focal point for a variety of city wide, community and neighbourhood functions. Mixed activity areas address the demand for employment, shopping and residential areas within the city. 4.2.2) Regulations i) Permissible land uses: Main land use category: R Ancillary land use category: C3, I-2, T2 and U4 Ancillary land use is permissible up to 30% of the total built up area If the plot is abutting a road as specified below, the ancillary uses can be used as main use. Space standards as at Table No.7 are applicable: Table 11: Plot Size and Ancillary uses permissible in Residential (Mixed) 14. In the present case, the property is situated in residential (mixed) zone. The total dimension of the property is 1213.284 sq.mtrs. The road width is 20.8 mtrs. And the permissible land use is as contemplated under Regulation 4.2.1. The property being much in excess of the permissible limit of 1000 sq.mtrs. In the present case, the property is situated in residential (mixed) zone. The total dimension of the property is 1213.284 sq.mtrs. The road width is 20.8 mtrs. And the permissible land use is as contemplated under Regulation 4.2.1. The property being much in excess of the permissible limit of 1000 sq.mtrs. in plot size, the ancillary use as the main use cannot be permitted in the said property. Ancillary use as main use is permissible on plots of total dimension of 240 to 1000 sq.mtrs., subject to the property abutting the main road with a minimum width of 18 mtrs. In other words, ancillary use as main use is not permissible in a property, which is in excess of 1000 sq.mtrs. in dimension. The philosophy/object in allowing mixed use in a residential area has been clearly explained in Regulation 4.2 of the Zoning of land use and Regulation under the revised Master Plan, 2015. The object of allowing use of smaller sized properties for ancillary use as main use is to permit housing, small establishments falling under C-3, I2, U-4, T-2 (inclusive of C-1 and C-2). In other words, permissible land use in these categories clearly indicate that these are meant to house, small establishment, with a view to obviate those living in the neighbourhood to travel over a long distance to reach these amenities. The use of the property of larger dimensions wholly for ancillary use defeats the whole object of orderly planning of the city. Such use of property in a residential area for non residential commercial purpose will cause disturbance to the peace and tranquility for those living in the neighbourhood, cause traffic congestion and burden the public amenities. The properties in excess of 1000 sq.mtrs. located in residential (mixed) zone, cannot be wholly used for anything other than residential. Ignoring the said object, second and third respondents have permitted the 4th respondent to use the said property entirely for commercial purpose, which is wholly illegal besides being in violation of the Revised Master Plan, 2015. 15. The contention of Sri Udaya Holla is that higher category of land use will also include the lower category. Therefore, in a residential (mixed) zone. Permission to put up construction can be granted treating the said land as residential (main) under Regulation 4.1. 15. The contention of Sri Udaya Holla is that higher category of land use will also include the lower category. Therefore, in a residential (mixed) zone. Permission to put up construction can be granted treating the said land as residential (main) under Regulation 4.1. Regulation 4.1.1 states that the areas of the city, which have been predominantly residential land use pattern is considered for residential (main) zone. This includes many areas of the city such as parts of Malleshwaram, Richmond Town, Vasanthnagar, Jayanagar, Vijayanagar, Rajajinagar, R.T.Nagar, etc. Under residential (main) use, if the plot size is more than 240 sq.mtrs. having a frontage of 10 mtrs. or more and the abutting road is more than 18 mtrs. Width, then ancillary use can be used as main use. He has drawn my attention to Chapter 2.0 of the Regulations, wherein it is stated that land use can be grouped according to the nature and intensity of use in an ascending manner. For example, C-4 indicates C=Commercial and 4 the order within the category. The C-4 list includes all land uses permissible specific to C-4 and the lower order uses of C-3, C-2 and C-1 unless specifically mentioned. 16. As stated above, Zones have been classified in Regulation 1.2. Residential zone has been further classified as ‘Residential (Main)’ and ‘Residential (Mixed)’ under Regulation 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. First of all, when the property lies within the residential (mixed) zone, application of residential (main) zone for land use does not arise. If a higher category of zoning of land use is included with the lower category of land use, unless it is specifically provided for, the very object of Zoning Regulations will be defeated. As has been stated above, the Courts cannot by interpretive process violate the object of the Zoning Regulation. The argument of Sri Udaya Holla that Chapter 2.0 permits inclusion of higher category with the lower category is not acceptable. The illustration given therein states that C-4 list includes all land uses permissible specific to C-4 and the lower order uses of C-3, C-2 and C-1 unless specifically mentioned. Similarly, if we examine list C-5 of Table-2, all land uses of C1, C2, C3 and C4 are permitted in C5. In list I-5 of Table 3, all uses of I-1, I-2, I-3 and I-4 are included. Similarly, if we examine list C-5 of Table-2, all land uses of C1, C2, C3 and C4 are permitted in C5. In list I-5 of Table 3, all uses of I-1, I-2, I-3 and I-4 are included. In list U-4 of Table 6, all uses of U1, U2 and U3 are permissible. Thus, the permissible land uses are specifically mentioned in different tables. If the land use of the lower category with the higher category are not specifically mentioned, question of including the lower category with the higher category cannot be permitted as it is violative of the Zoning Regulations of Revised Master Plan, 2015. 17. The Revised Master Plan, 2015 was developed to address the over all vision for the City of Bangalore. The over all vision gives scope for urban integration, industries and services, hawking/informed sector, mixed land usage, housing and shelter, transportation, re-development of lakes and urban afforestation, safe sanitation, water supply, energy and power, urban community upgrading, no development zone, health and education, art and culture, etc. It envisages a compact, balanced and equitable urban growth for the city. The Zonal Regulations are an integral part of the Master Plan. The zone delineation and permissible land uses within the zone and respective regulations for land use are co-related to achieve orderly growth. The Zoning Regulations are made taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is the bounden duty of the citizen to obey and the Corporation to sanction the plan in accordance with the said Regulations. The Corporation should always act in aid of the building bye-laws. Relaxation of the Regulations would mean the nullification of the Rules themselves and the object sought to be achieved by the Regulations and the need to have planned development of the cities and towns in the interest of posterity. 18. In K.RAMDAS SHENOY’s case (supra), the Apex Court was considering the validity of the plan issued by Udupi Municipality for construction of a cinema building. It has been held thus: “Where the Municipality acts in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or abuses those powers then in those cases it is not exercising its jurisdiction irregularly or wrongly but it is usurping powers which it does not possess. The right to build on his own land is a right incidental in the ownership of that land. The right to build on his own land is a right incidental in the ownership of that land. Within the Municipality the exercise of that right has been regulated in the interest of the community residing within the limits of the Municipal Committee. If sanction is given to build by contravening a bye-law the jurisdiction of the Courts will be invoked on the ground that the approval by an authority of building plans which contravene the bye-laws made by that authority is illegal and inoperative. An illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right to or enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statue to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorised construction. The scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The rights of the residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and in derogation of the powers of the Municipality the Courts will quash such orders.” 19. In B.K.SRINIVASAN’s case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the Corporation authorities cannot grant any licence or permission contrary to the O.D.P. and the Zoning Regulations. 20. In H.V.HOTELS PVT. LTD.’s case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that relaxation of building bye-laws would mean the nullification of the Rules themselves and the object sought to be achieved by the building Rules and the need to have planned development of cities and towns in the interests of posterity. Building Regulations are in public interest. The Courts have a duty to protect public interest particularly when they do not interfere with any of the fundamental rights of the purchaser. The plea based on equity cannot be accepted. 21. In PRIYANKA ESTATES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws are made by the Corporation or by Development Authorities, taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is a bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such Rules which are made for their benefit. If unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by Court, then it is bound to affect the public at large. If unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given a seal of approval by Court, then it is bound to affect the public at large. An individual has a right, including a fundamental right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads the public rights leading to public inconvenience, therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent.’ 22. The decisions relied on by Sri Udaya Holla, on this question in (i) KAILASH CHAND (ii) CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN and (iii) SRI KRISHNAPUR MUTT, UDUPI referred to in paragraph 7 of this order are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the first decisions, the Apex Court was considering the scope of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Third proviso to Section 14 (3)(a)(i) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 states that where the landlord has obtained possession of any building or rented land under the provisions of clause (a) or clause (b), he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said clause for the possession of any other building of the same class or rented land. The Apex Court held that the said proviso cannot be interpreted as to restrict the right conferred under subsection (3)(a)(i) on the landlord to be excisable only once in a lifetime. The proviso has to be read as providing a statutory expression of a situation, which would otherwise have been held to be malafides of a requirement. The proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that in spite of the requirement having undergone a change or a new requirement unrelated to the previous one having come into existence, the landlord would yet be denied relief under sub-section (3)(a)(i) merely because at some point of time in the past he had resorted to this provision for seeking an eviction. Such an interpretation is too rigid an interpretation and would cause such hardship to the landlord as the legislature cannot said to have intended. In the second decision, the Apex Court has held that if a zoning classification imposes unreasonable considerations, safety or general welfare in mind, but the same would become irrelevant, as thereby statutory rights of a party cannot be taken away. The Court must make an endeavor to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right to hold property, on the other. The Court must make an endeavor to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right to hold property, on the other. The right to property is now considered to be not only constitutional right but also a human right. In the third decision, this Court has held that the restrictions imposed in the planning law though in public interest should be strictly interpreted because they make an inroad into the rights of a private person to carry on his business by construction of a suitable building for the purpose and incidentally may affect his fundamental right if too widely interpreted. The building bye-laws while sanctioning a plan will take care of what parking space should be provided in the area and whether the building itself would have such facility. But under the planning laws what is required to be seen is whether there is any change in the use of land and building from the one which was originally granted, and whether such change is a material change or not for the purposes of the Act. In the present case, the question for consideration is entirely different. The question is whether a plan can be sanctioned contrary to the Zoning Regulations which have the statutory force. When the property lies within the residential (mixed) zone, question of sanctioning the plan treating the land as falling within a residential (main) would amount to violation of Zoning Regulations. 23. The contention of the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent that the writ petitions have been engineered by one Ramaswamy cannot be considered as he is not a party to these writ petitions. The petitions cannot even be dismissed on the ground of delay because the sanctioned plan at Annexure ‘H’ was issued on 16.9.2010 and petitioners have filed a representation requesting the Commissioner to recall the plan on 16.11.2010 itself. 24. The other contention of Sri Udaya Holla that when the Corporation has consistently understood and applied the bye-law in a particular manner, the Court should not interfere with the practice which has been followed by it, cannot be accepted. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the Zoning Regulations. Therefore, the Corporation cannot be allowed to perpetuate illegally in sanctioning the plan contrary to the Zoning Regulations. In CAPT. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the Zoning Regulations. Therefore, the Corporation cannot be allowed to perpetuate illegally in sanctioning the plan contrary to the Zoning Regulations. In CAPT. KARAN VASWANI’s case (supra) relied on by Sri Udaya Holla, the Apex Court was considering a question as to whether experience as a Master and Pilot could be clubbed together for possessing 10 years of experience? In this context, the Apex Court has held that the nature and functions of master and pilot are similar. In that background, the Court held that the interpretation placed by the Government is not reasonable. In N.SURESH NATHAN’s case (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the construction of Service Rules. It has been held that construction in consonance with long standing practice prevailing in the concerned Department to be preferred. In M/S GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.’s case (supra), the Apex Court has again held that an interpretation consistently given over the years and accepted and acted upon the Department may not normally be upset even though a different view of law may reasonably be possible unless the new perceptions and circumstances warrant fresh look. These decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. 23. It is to be noted here that even in the case of stare decisis rule, a principle of law, which has become settled by a series of decisions is generally binding on the Courts and should be followed in similar cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said Rule is not so imperative or inflexible as to preclude a departure therefrom in any case and its application must be determined in each case by the discretion of the Court and the previous decisions should not be followed to the extent that the error may be perpetuated and grievous wrong may result. It has been further held that the doctrine of stare decisis is not an imprisonment of reason. It is not inflexible. It has been further held that the doctrine of stare decisis is not an imprisonment of reason. It is not inflexible. But, if it is shown that the decision was clearly or manifestly wrong and it has been followed by the Court in other cases and its maintenance is injurious to public interest, then not only it has the power to declare the earlier law as wrong but it becomes its duty to reverse the said law as otherwise it amounts to permitting to perpetuate errors to the detriment of the general welfare or a considerable section thereof. (See MAKTUL VS. Mst.MANBHARI & OTHERS- AIR 1958 SC 918 ) 26. In fact, in B.K. SRINIVASAN’s case (supra), the Apex Court has rejected a similar argument by holding as under: “20. Shri Cooper argued that neither the Municipal Corporation nor any other civil authority appeared to be aware of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as was evident from the circumstance that in the years that passed since the approval of the Plan by the Government and before the writ petitions were filed, as many as 57 building licences had admittedly been issued in contravention of the Regulations. It may be that notwithstanding the Regulations some building licences were granted in contravention of the Regulations but that only exposes the deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities and emphasizes the need for greater public vigilance. The present writ petitions, we hope, are forerunners of such vigilance.” (emphasis supplied by me) 27. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 7.6.2011 passed by the first respondent and the sanction plan bearing L.P. No.(JC)L.P.No. 546/2010-11 dated 16.9.2010 (Annexure ‘H’) are hereby quashed. No costs.