Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
K. Gopalagowda, S/o. Krishnappa and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.50462 Of 2019 (GM – RES)
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 300A - Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 12, 13A, 69, (2) - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 68 - Master plan - Formation of road - Quashment of endorsements - Change of alignment - Court calling in question refused to consider request of petitioners, for change of alignment to tune of 30 meters in Master Plan concerning road that passes through lands of petitioners and have also sought for quashment of endorsements which communicate resolution – Lands of petitioners have been held by Planning Authority under master plan since 2004 and 19 years have passed by - Para 13.
Finding of the Court: Right of a land-owner which would emerge from sub-section (2) of Section 69 to claim that lands earmarked in master plan would lapse if they are not acquired within five years would not enure to benefit of petitioners, as statute itself makes an exception that once it is earmarked for purpose of roads, major or minor; highways state or national; for meeting immediate and future requirements, would all be exempted from lapsing despite passage of five years - It is no doubt true that lands of petitioners have been held by Planning Authority under master plan since 2004 and 19 years have passed by - Master Plan of 2025 is yet to come about as one that is in existence is master plan of 2015, in which lands of petitioners continues to be held for purpose of formation of road - Petitioners cannot claim that their lands held by Planning Authority in terms of Section 12 would lapse or petitioners would have a right to reclaim land or seek to realign formation of roads - Law prohibits it - If law prohibits it, Court by its fiat cannot direct Planning Authority to act contrary to law.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question resolution dated 12-07-2017 by which the 3rd respondent/ Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (‘the Planning Authority’ for short) refused to consider the request of the petitioners, for change of alignment to the tune of 30 meters in the Master Plan concerning road that passes through the lands of the petitioners and have also sought for quashment of endorsements dated 20-05-2018 (20-06-2018)(Annex – T, T1) and 25-07-2018 which communicate the said resolution. The petitioners further seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to change the alignment passing through certain villages in which the lands of the petitioners situate.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane are as follows:
The 1st petitioner claims to be owner of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.10/3 which is now renumbered as Sy.No.10/9 in Tharabanahlli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengalore North Taluk now Yelahanka Taluk in Bangalore Urban District. The 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring 1 acre and 32 guntas in Sy.No.15 of the same village. The petitioners aver that the village map of Tharabanahlli Village in 1919 displayed existence of village road formed in lands in Sy. Nos. 9, 12, 15, 17 and 21 of Tharabanahalli Village. It is claimed that on 13-09-2004 certain developers having their lands in Sy.Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 of Navarathna Agarahara and lands in Sy.Nos. 12 and 9 of Tharabanahlli Village and owing to the development of these lands at the behest of those developers the alignment of road was changed.
3. The 1st petitioner after purchase of land approaches the Planning authority for the purpose of conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. It is the averment that the 1st petitioner was notified at that point in time that Sy.No.10 of Tharabanahlli Village was earmarked for public and semi-public purpose and not for residential purposes. The 1st petitioner claims to have gone through the master plan and learnt that entire 1 acre in Sy.No.10/3 which is now renumbered as 10/9 of Tharabanahlli Village was proposed to be used for formation of road in the master plan. It is the averment that the petitioner was shocked by such revelation. The 1st petitioner claims that he was not aware of any master plan that was brought into force and the property was earmarked for formation of a road in the master plan. The 1st petitioner was informed that the Planning Authority had approved the interim master plan on 13-09-2014, objections were called for and the final master plan was approved five years thereafter on 29-01-2009. The 1st petitioner claims to be unaware of all these factors.
4. The 2nd petitioner had purchased the property measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.15 of Tharabanahlli Village from Smt. Pillamma in terms of sale deed dated 19-11-2010 and got 30 guntas out of land converted for industrial purposes and the reminder out of the said land was converted for park and road alignment purpose. It is after that the property has been permitted to be used for non-agricultural residential purpose. The Official Memoranda that demonstrate the aforesaid facts are appended to the petition. The 1st petitioner submits representation on 10-02-2016 to the Planning Authority to change the alignment of the road in the master plan, so that it runs in the lands in Sy.No.12 and 9 instead of Sy.Nos. 11, 10, 8 and 15 of Tharabanahlli Village. The representation did not yield any response and a second representation was submitted on 31-03-2016. Certain clarifications were sought from the hands of the 1st petitioner which led the 1st petitioner to submit another representation seeking that alignment should be changed or his land should be subject matter of payment of compensation as the entire 1 acre has been taken away. Communications between the 2nd and 3rd respondents were made after the representation submitted by the 1st petit
The designation of land for public purposes under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act does not lapse after a specified time, but the rights of property owners must be balanced against long de....
Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 indeed any of their discretionary powers.
Point of law : Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there ex....
The government's power to acquire land for public purposes, the broader interpretation of 'public purpose' in land acquisition matters, and the relevance of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transpa....
Failure to acquire land within three years under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act results in automatic lapse of reservation.
The court mandated the Jaipur Development Authority to construct a planned 100 ft. road as per the Master Plan and remove all encroachments obstructing public infrastructure, emphasizing judicial res....
Failure to acquire land within three years results in automatic release from reservation under Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Land reserved under planning laws is deemed released if not acquired within three years, as per Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
