Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.V. ANJARIA, CJ, K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Ranjal Raghuram Shenoy S/o Ranjal Balakrishna Shenoy - Appellant
Versus
The Bangalore Development Authority - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16570 of 2015
Decided On : 28-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nidhishree B.V.
For the Respondents: K. Krishna, C. Shankar Reddy, Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Joseph Anthony, H. Devendrappa
Failure to establish a land's reservation for public parks invalidates public interest petitions seeking to annul related sale deeds when zoning clearly permits industrial use.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 25; Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985 - The case involves the challenge against the sale of land earmarked for public park, designated in earlier development plans, but allotted for industrial use contrary to previous classifications. (Paras 3, 5.5)
(B) Public Interest Litigation - The court held that the petitioners failed to establish that the land was reserved for a park, asserting that the petition was misconceived and lacked merit. The petitioners were also deemed to have delayed the challenge unduly after 30 years. (Paras 5.5, 5.7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, residents of Koramangala Layout, contested the appointment of private respondents to the land classified as park in earlier plans. They sought the annulment of the Sale Deed from Bangalore Development Authority to private respondent. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The evidence did not support the claim that the site was designated for park usage and the subsequent sale was valid, given the zoning classification as Industrial Hi Tech in the Revised Master Plan 2015. (Paras 5.1, 5.8)
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the site was formally designated as a park and the legal standing of the sale deeds executed. (Paras 3, 5.5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined there was no authoritative documentation confirming the land was reserved for park purposes and concluded no public interest was found, nor was the petition timely. (Paras 5.5, 5.6)
Result: The petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. public interest petition filed by residents (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners allege property misallocated as park (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent bda's rebuttal of petitioners' claims (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis and dismissal of claim validity (Para 5) |
| 5. petition dismissed; no relief granted (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Smt. B.V. Nidhishree for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. K. Krishna for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. C. Shankar Reddy for respondent No.3, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi with learned advocate Mr. Joseph Anthony for respondent No.4 and learned advocate Mr. H. Devendrappa for respondent No.5.
2. The present petition is filed styling it as public interest petition. The petitioners are the residents and owners of houses/residential apartments in Koramangala Layout.Following are the prayers made in the petition:
(i) to set aside the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 executed by respondent No.2-the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in favour of private respondent No.3, now represented by his heirs respondent No.3(a) and respondent No.3(b).
(ii) to set aside the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 executed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4.
(iii) to set aside the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 10.05.1985 entered into by respondent No.1-the BDA and respondent No.3.
(iv) to set aside the Revised Master Plan 2015 insofar as it demarcated the property in question as 'Hi-Tech'.
(v) to direct respondent No.5-the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to develop and maintain the property in question as park area.
(vi) to direct respondent No.1 to take action in accordance with law against the officers responsible for allotment and execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of the property in question.
3. The case of the petitioners is inter alia that the property, which is parcel of vacant site No.5-A situated at 1 'A' Block, Industrial Layout, Koramangala, Bengaluru admeasuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 530 feet, totalling 2954.29 square meters, was designated as a 'park' area in the Comprehensive Development Plan in the years 1984 and 1995 by the BDA. However, the BDA proceeded to allot the property to respondent No.3 and that, respondent No.2 has executed deed dated 01.08.2014 for absolute in favour of respondent No.3 thereby deviating from the user earmarked in the Comprehensive Development Plan.
3.1 The petitioners have stated that respondent No.1-the BDA, which is the Planning Authority for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, prepares Comprehensive Development Plan which will be revised once in ten years as per Section 25 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The first Comprehensive Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area was approved on 12.10.1984. Thereafter, the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan was approved on 05.01.1995. A Revised Master Plan was formulated in the year 2015 which was approved and confirmed by the State Government on 25.06.2007.
3.2 It is stated that property known as Survey No.56, Jakkasandra Village, which is now Koramangala Layout, 1 'A' Block, was converted into sites by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board. The property described hereinabove, it was stated, was designated as a site for Civic Amenity and as a public space in the Comprehensive Development Plan 1995. The Revised Master Plan 2015 depicts the said area including the described property as 'Hi Tech' area.
3.3 It is the case of the petitioners that when the property was earmarked in the Comprehensive Development Plan as Civic Amenity, the change of user would be in contravention of the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985. It is the case that in any view, change in the Zoning Regulations would not denude the property of its status as a 'park' for which it was earmarked, without the orders of the appropriate government in that regard. According to th
