ORDER

The petitioners have promoted a residential layout in the land measuring 7 acres 24 guntas in Sy. No.53 of Kallukote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk [the subject land] and they are aggrieved by the Endorsement dated 04.03.2022 issued by the third respondent [Annexure-A]. Sri G Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Naveen Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, as also Sri S Raju, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, are heard for final disposal.

2. The petitioners have filed their application with the third respondent to grant revised approval for the layout developed in the subject land permitting them to form additional residential sites. The third respondent in issuing the impugned Endorsement has rejected the petitioners’ application observing that even as of the year 1996-97, the revenue records have been mutated for 152 sites and the necessary records are transferred to his office, and therefore, it would not be possible to consider the request for modified approval.

3. The petitioners are first permitted to develop the subject land into a residential layout with the orders for diversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 vide the Official Memorandum dated 23.01.1992 stipulating, amongst others, that the petitioners must maintain a buffer of 46 meters from the centre of the abutting road, and later the layout plan is sanctioned permitting them to form residential sites with such 46 meters as a buffer. The petitioners’ case is that insistence on buffer of 46 meters was because of the proposal to upgrade the abutting road to a National Highway but over a period of time, this proposal is changed and the National Highway is developed at a distance of more than 2½ kilometer from the subject land, and consequentially, the buffer that would be required from the centre of the road is only 21 meters. The petitioners’ assert that this would entitle them to develop the additional land that would be beyond the buffer of 21 meters.

4. Sri Naveen Chandrashekar and Sri S Raju are heard in the light of these circumstances. Sri S Raju, who appears for Sira Planning Authority, is emphatic that the petitioners must avail alternative remedy under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and that the petitioners would not be entitled, notwithstanding the circumstances relied upon by them, for any change in the configuration of the layout as provided way back in the year 1996 because of the Circular dated

31.10.1996 issued by the State Government.

5. Sri S Raju argues that in terms of this Circular dated 31.10.1996, it would be incumbent to grant approval for formation of layout insisting upon utilizing 55% of the subject land for residential sites, 10% of the land for park and open/utility space of and the remaining land being utilized for Roads and other purposes. In rejoinder, Sri G Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in very similar circumstances, the promoters of the adjacent lands have been permitted to utilize the additional area and he proposes to rely upon Annexure-E in this regard.

6. The third respondent, in rejecting the petitioners' request for utilization of the additional land between [the buffer between 21 meters and 46 meters], has only referred to the khata that are made in the year 1996 without examining the matrix that is followed while granting a layout approval and the possible change in that if the request is now accepted. This Court is of the considered opinion that the true consideration of the petitioners' request would be when the subject land is inspected and the records are examined to ascertain whether if the request is accepted, the petitioners would be permitted to use any area beyond 55% of the total area for residential purposes and whether such permission is expedient in the existing circumstances.

7. Therefore, this Court must conclude that the consider