Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Sri M. Govindappa S/o Late Motappa – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24726 of 2022 (LB-RES)
Decided on : 13-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda., Advocate
For the Respondent:SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE
The Planning Authority should not impinge upon the property rights of citizens and should act in the interest of the public. Actions and permissions taken by the Planning Authority should be acted upon by third parties who have purchased the plots.
Headnote:
KTCP Act, 1961 - The petitioners obtained conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes and applied for a layout plan under this act. The court observes that the Planning Authority should act under this act for orderly development of the state and urban areas. BMRD Act - The petitioners filed appeals under this act challenging the non-release of sites by the Planning Authority. The court refers to previous orders passed under this act and directs the respondents to comply with them.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are seeking various reliefs including the quashing of certain endorsements and letters issued by the respondents. The petitioners are owners of land that was converted for non-agricultural purposes and a layout plan was sanctioned. However, the respondents have not released all the sites as per the plan. The petitioners have filed appeals and made representations, but the respondents have not complied with the orders. The petitioners argue that the actions of the respondents are malafide and in violation of the applicable law. The respondents argue that the petitioners should relinquish the land for road formation. The court observes that the Planning Authority should not impinge upon the property rights of citizens and directs the respondents to comply with the previous orders and release the balance sites. The court quashes the endorsements and letters issued by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court criticizes the Planning Authority for not following the applicable law and for trying to form a road in the land after sanctioning the layout. The court emphasizes that actions and permissions taken by the Planning Authority should be acted upon by third parties who have purchased the plots. The court notes that the respondents have not complied with previous orders and have shown a disregard for such orders. The court concludes that the respondents' demands are dishonest and that the Planning Authority should act in the interest of the public and not deprive their property rights. The court directs the respondents to comply with the previous orders and release the balance sites.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the Planning Authority should not impinge upon the property rights of citizens and should act in the interest of the public. The court emphasizes that actions and permissions taken by the Planning Authority should be acted upon by third parties who have purchased the plots. The court directs the respondents to comply with the previous orders and release the balance sites.
Result: The writ petition is allowed. The endorsements and letters issued by the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to comply with the previous orders and release the balance sites of the petitioners within 15 days. The petitioners are permitted to serve a copy of this order on the respondents. The court refrains from imposing costs on the respondents.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, to quash the endorsement dated 16.09.2021 bearing number NAYOPRA LAO 58 2005-06 Annexure -K and letter dated 27.07.2021 bearing number NAYOPRA LAO 58 2006-06 at Annexure K1 issued by R-2
b) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the R2 to release the remaining sites,1,2,3,22,38,73 and 74 as per the orders of R1 dated 06.07.2013 Appeal No. AE 198 BMR/2012 Annexure -G.
c) Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the R1 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the learned officials of R2 who are responsible for not releasing the sites even after directions issued by R1 as per Annexure -E and G through competent officer.
d) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction, that be deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including an order for costs be passed, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioners are owners of land carved out of Sy.No.184/1 measuring 5 acres 15 guntas at Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The petitioner obtained conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and applied to respondent No.2 for sanction of layout plan in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [‘KTCP Act’ for short].
3. The respondent sanctioned the said plan on 26.05.2006, in pursuance thereof the petitioners formed 90 sites of different dimensions, the highest being 30 x 50 ft. and other sites being lesser than that. 60% of the sites were released numbering nearly 54 sites and the balance 40% were remaining to be released. Subsequently, when an application was filed by the petitioner for release of balance 40%, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 6.03.2009 informed the petitioners that the said release cannot be made on account of the Master Plan proposing 45 mtr road in the layout which would cover many of the sites which were not released.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 10(5) of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Act [‘BMRD Act’ for short] which came to be allowed vide order dated 10.01.2011 directing the respondents to release balance 40% sites with liberty to acquire any land required for road widening.
5. In pursuance thereof the petitioners made a representation on 22.02.2011 for release 40% balance sites, when a few of the sites were released except 7 sites. Though the said sites were not released and the petitioner took up the same, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to allot alternate sites to the purchaser of seven sites and make available the said sites for widening of the road.
6. Once again petitioner filed an appeal under Section 10(5) of BMRD Act challenging this order. The Prl. Secretary, Urban Development Department set-aside the endorsement dated 9.07.2012 vide his order dated 6.07.20213 and directed respondents to comply with the order dated 10.01.2011 passed in earlier appeal passed under Section BMRD Act.
7. The petitioner once again made a request for release of the sites on 6.08.2021 when once again an endorsement is claimed to be issued on 16.09.2021directing the petitioners to relinquish 45 mtrs of land required for formation of road. Much belatedly even the conversion of the land in Sy.No.184/1 was questioned by calling upon the petitioner to produce the sketch of the said land and if there conversion order relating thereto. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
8. Sri.G.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that,
8.1. The entire action on part of the respondents is completely malafide inasmuch as the respondents have not followed the directions issued in two of the appeals filed under Section 10(5) and the respondents have been acting on their own accord dehors the applicable law, as also in violation of applicable law
