1. The petitioners are the licence traders functioning in the market yard of Bandipalya, APMC Yard, Mysore. The second respondent developed a market yard vide Annexure-G in the year 1999-2000. In respect of the area in ‘A’ block there was remodified layout plan vide Annexure-R1. The petitioners are the occupants of shop Nos.39 and 17 situated in ‘A’ block. In the original plan to the frontage of shop No.17 and the behind portion of shop Nos.39, 40, 41 the large area is shown as vacant. A high tension wire is running over the portion of the said vacant area. The 3rd respondent in fact had formed two sites in the said vacant area, and because of the high tension wire passing over the said area, the two sites which were allotted to the allottees was withdrawn vide Annexure-E and the allottees were relocated.

2. The 3rd respondent vide Annexure-R1-the modified layout plan, has formed site No.316 allotted to the front site No.17 and high portion of site No.39 and site No.40 the same is allotted to respondent No.5. The petitioners contend that the original layout plan at Annexure-G and remodified layout plan at Annexure-R1 are illegal, because there is no sanction obtained from respondent No.4, who is the planning authority.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the layout plan has been tampered and that the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore has submitted a report in that regard. The modified layout plan has been done buckling to the political pressure to accommodate respondents 5 to 7. In the light of the above facts, the petitioners pray that respondents 2 and 3 not to give effect to the modified layout plan and not to allot site No.316 to anybody and for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to comply with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (for short ‘Act’).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the following contentions to oppose the modified layout plant at Annexure-R1:-

(1) The original plan at Annexure-G and modified plan at Annexure-R1 are illegal, because no written permission is taken from the planning authority as required under the Act. Therefore, the formation of the market yard at Bandipalya, as illegal.

(2) The area where site No.316 in Annexure-R1 is formed was shown as a vacant area in the layout plan at Annexure-G. The said area was kept vacant because a high tension wire was running over the said area. Therefore, it was found not feasible to use the said area for construction of shop premises. In the said vacant area two sites were formed and were allotted. The same came to be withdrawn vide Annexure-G and the said allottees have been given alternative sites. When once it was found that the said area is not feasible for construction of shop premises, it is impermissible to change their stand and create sites in the said area to favour respondents 5 to 7.

(3) The report of the Deputy Commissioner discloses that he had passed a resolution showing allotment of sites to certain individuals. The Secretary later on has tampered the resolution changing the dimension of the site and the numbers and that there is fraud played by way of fabrication of records by the Secretary.

(4) The respondents 5 to 7 have been allotted sites in the disputed area on account of political influence.

In view of the said contention it is contended that the layout plans prepared at Annexures ‘G’ and ‘R1’ have to be quashed. The respondents 2 and 3 should be directed to comply with the provisions of the Act.

5. Sri. Manjunath P.S., learned Counsel for the 4th respondent supported the arguments of the petitioners to the effect that there is no sanction of layout plan obtained and that there is no compliance of provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act.

6. The provisions of Section 81-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act declares that upon consideration of Urban Development Authorities for the cities, the