IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Sri Y Venkatesh, S/O Late Yella Reddy @ Yellappa - Petitioner
Versus
The Bangalore Urban Zilla Panchayth And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8685 of 2015 (LB-RES)
Decided On : 27-09-2024
(A) Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - Jurisdiction of KIADB and Gram Panchayat - The petitioner challenged the demolition order issued by the Zilla Panchayat, asserting that the KIADB is the competent authority for building plan sanctions in industrial areas. The court found that the Grama Panchayat lacked jurisdiction to issue such sanctions, leading to the quashing of the demolition order. (Paras 24, 28, 32)
(B) Authority and Compliance - The court directed the petitioner to apply to the KIADB for plan sanction, emphasizing compliance with applicable building bye-laws. The KIADB must inspect the property and issue necessary certificates based on compliance. (Paras 28, 29, 30)
(C) Equitable Relief - The court balanced equities by allowing the petitioner to regularize the construction despite the initial lack of proper sanction from the Grama Panchayat. (Paras 25, 26)
ORDER :
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
b. Issue any other order, direction or writ deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court from the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner claims to be the Proprietor of a Hotel running under the name and style of “M/s.Vishnu Hotel”. The said hotel was constructed in Plot No.256-A1 in Bommasandra Industrial Area, Anekal Taluk, which plot was allotted to the petitioner as per an allotment letter dated 21.11.1995 by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘KIADB’ for short).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/allottee has complied with all the terms and conditions imposed by the KIADB and thereafter, a registered sale deed came to be executed on 25.9.2000.
4. Contending that the KIADB has no jurisdiction since a sale deed has been executed, the petitioner applied to the Bommasandra Grama panchayat for grant of plan sanction for putting up construction on the said plot, which was so granted. In terms thereof, the petitioner put up the construction, and thereafter, he has been running his business by making payment of necessary taxes to the Bommasandra Grama Panchayath.
5. The KIADB on 21.6.2013 had issued notice/letter to the Panchayath Development Officer, Bommasandra Grama Panchayath, calling upon the Panchayath to cancel the general license issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner applied to respondent No.3, seeking a copy of the letter. Thereafter, the said letter came to be challenged in WP No.30821/2013 which came to be disposed vide order dated 4.8.2021, when the letter dated 21.6.2013 was read down as a show cause notice with liberty to the petitioner to reply to the same.
6. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.1-Bangalore Urban Zilla Panchayath issued a letter on 7.7.2014 to respondents No.2 and 3 directing them to inform BESCOM to disconnect the powers supply to the said property. The petitioner challenged this in WP No.35235/2014, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2014 directing respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter by giving the petitioner an opportunity.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the documents that he relied upon, and a personal hearing was requested; without any hearing being held, the petitioner learnt on 28.2.2015 that directions have been issued for the demolition of the building on the basis of the certain complaints received from certain third parties. There are various allegations which had been made against the petitioner as regards the fabrication of the building license and plan sanction and finally, by way of Annexure-A being the order dated 26.2.2015 issued by the Zilla Panchayat, the property of the petitioner was directed to be demolished. It is challenging the same that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
8. After hearing all the counsels, the issue that came up for consideration was who is the plan sanctioning authority in respect of a plot allotted by the KIADB, even after a sale deed was executed by the KIADB. KIADB having contended that only it can sanction the plans, and the Panchayat also took the stand that only the Panchayat can sanction the plans.
9. Against that background, the State of Karnataka, represented by the Commerce and Industries Department, Urban Development Department, and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, were brought on record.
10. The Learned Advocate General was also requested to assist this Court in the matter and make his submissions since the issue raised in the present matter had a wider ramification across all industrial areas established by the KIADB where lakhs of plots have been formed, putting at risk the interest of all such
The KIADB is the sole authority for issuing building plan permissions in industrial areas, superseding local bodies like the Grama Panchayat.
Point of law: writ petition was not barred by either on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata. In the peculiar facts of the case since the issues referred to supra namely issue ....
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 original HIDCO plan was the only legally valid sanctioned plan, and the impugned order lacked credible defense and was contrary to legal provisions.
Regulatory powers of NOIDA cannot arbitrarily deny building permits; valid ownership rights must be respected and decisions must be backed by statutory reasons.
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
Regulatory authorities cannot arbitrarily deny building permits without valid statutory reasons, especially when ownership rights are undisputed.
The Court declared the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 2021 and related demands unconstitutional, emphasizing the illegality of fee linkage to market value and ensuring no double char....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.