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 delays in fulfilling public projects.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 08-03-2022 passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’ for short) and seeking a consequential direction to sanction the plan on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioners for development and construction of an apartment building.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The father of the petitioners was the absolute owner and in possession of the subject property in Sy.No.75 of Rachenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring 2 acres 08 guntas. The said land comes to be converted from agriculture to residential purpose in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11-02-2003. Consequent upon the death of the father of the petitioners, all these petitioners are said to have inherited the subject property. The property coming within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) khatha and all other municipal records got transferred into the names of these petitioners. It is the submission that taxes have been paid by these petitioners up to date.

3. On 17-07-2019 the petitioners submit an application for sanction of building licence and building plan. The BBMP acknowledges receipt of the application. The petitioners are said to have paid an amount of Rs.23.34 lakhs to the BBMP towards licence fee. The BBMP then issues an endorsement stating that in terms of revised Master Plan of 2015 a road passes through the subject property and it would be able to sanction the building plan only after shifting the proposed road. The petitioners then challenge the said endorsement before this Court in Writ Petition No.12506 of 2021, but later withdrew the petition with liberty to file an application under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) seeking shifting of the road. The petitioners then file the application before the BDA under Section 14A of the Act, for the purpose of shifting of the road which passes through the schedule property. The BDA did not consider the application. Therefore, the petitioners again approach this Court in Writ Petition No.353 of 2022 seeking a direction to that effect. After issuance of notice, the BDA issues an endorsement that it is not permissible to submit a proposal for change of land use, if the land comes within the existing or the proposed road in terms of the Master Plan. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to challenge the said endorsement. Therefore, the subject petition is preferred by the petitioners challenging the said endorsement.

4. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri N. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4 and Sri N. R. Jagadeeshwara, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Master Plan 2015 came into effect in the year 2007. The BDA itself is not aware as to when the proposed road would come up. He would take this Court through a sketch to contend that all buildings have come up on the adjacent sites of the property and laying a road there, is next to impossibility. But, the BDA is wanting to hold the property only because it has power under Section 69 (2) of the Act. He would submit that right to property by the petitioners as obtaining under Article 300-A of the Constitution is put to jeopardy, by the act of the BDA in not considering the application of the petitioners for shifting of the road, when there is enormous space outside the area. The BDA is seeking of its impossibility. Therefore, he seeks a direction to permit shifting of the road and allowing petitioners to have benefit of right to property.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Unnikrishnan appearing for responde