2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2754
- 1 -
WP No. 24206 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24206 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1.
MRS. BHAVANI YELLAPPA PALYAGAR,
W/O. MR. SHANTHA KUMAR PUSHPARAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT. SHANTHI NIVAS,
1ST CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR,
BENGALORE - 560 047.
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER,
MAARQ SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CV ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED),
OFFICE AT.NO.73, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. BALAKRISHNA KUDIGRAM.
2.
MAARQ SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CV ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED),
OFFICE AT.NO.73,
2ND MAIN ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU -560 003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. BALAKRISHNA KUDIGRAM.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K S HARISH., ADVOCATE)
®
Digitally signed by
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WP No. 24206 of 2022
AND:
1.
THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH)
BURHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
3.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WARD NO.150, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU - 560 048.
4.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK (W),
BANGALORE-560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V G BHANU PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. NITYANANDA K R., AGA FOR R4;
SRI. K KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 AT
ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
WP No. 24206 of 2022
The petitioners is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
1.1.
"Issue a writ in nature of certiorari setting aside or
quashing
the
impugned
endorsement
No.
dA.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ(G)/¦.Dgï/2022
dA.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ(G)/¦.Dgï/2022
dA.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ(G)/¦.Dgï/2022
dA.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ(G)/¦.Dgï/2022----23
23
23
23
dated
22.08.2022
issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-Q;
1.2.
Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
No.2 to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioners
as sought in their application dated 26.05.2022 at
Annexure-P;
1.3.
Issue such other writ, order of direction that this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and
equity."
Petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner of the converted
property bearing Sy. No. 153/3, measuring 1 acre and 24
guntas, situated in Doddakannahalli Village, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Petitioner No.2 is a
developer who is involved in to business of real estate
development. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into a joint
development agreement on 20.12.2016 for the purpose
of construction of apartment complex. In furtherance of
which, the petitioners applied for sanction of building plan
to respondent No.2–Joint Director(Town Planning) BBMP.
In furtherance of which, a demand was made for deposit
- 4 -
of plan sanction fee on 28.11.2017 and on compliance
thereof, the plan came to be sanctioned on 19.01.2018
and a building license was issued.
Before putting up such a construction, the petitioners
obtained
No
Objection
Certificate
from
BWSSB,
Karnataka Pollution Control Board, etc.,. The petitioners
in furtherance of the same, commenced construction of
an apartment complex. A commencement certificate
came to be issued on 28.02.2019 in pursuance thereof,
the construction was continued and completed.
On completion, the petitioners applied for and obtained a
consent for operation from KSBCB as also electricity
connection from BESCOM and made an application on
26.05.2022 for issuance of an occupancy certificate to
respondent No.2.
It is at this stage that respondent No.2 took up a
contention that there was a proposed road, measuring 18
mtrs going through the property of the petitioners in
terms of RMP 2015 and therefore, refused to grant the
occupancy certificate. On the ground that, the petitioners
- 5 -
have allegedly encroached upon the said proposed RMP
road and that the petitioners could not have put up
construction on the said proposed RMP road.
6.
The petitioners therefore, submitted a representation
placing on record events which transpired as also
submitting that the petitioners have put up construction
in accordance with the sanctioned plan there being no
deviation which had been pointed out, the ground now
urged by respondent No.2 is not sustainable, and as
such, the occupancy certificate ought to be issued to the
petitioners,
No
action
being
taken
thereon,
the
petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs:
7.
Sri.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that
7.1. a master plan 2031 having been issued on
23.11.2017, there is no road proposed or otherwise
shown in the said master plan 2031.
7.2. It is on the basis of the said proposed or provisional
master plan 2031 that the plan of the petitioners
- 6 -
has
been
considered
and
sanctioned
on
19.01.2018.
7.3. Merely because the said 2131 master plan was
withdrawn on 20.06.2022 it cannot now be
contended that the earlier master plan 2015 is
brought back into force and thereby contend that
the proposal for establishing an 18 mtr road would
come back into operation having an impact on the
plan already sanctioned.
7.4. The petitioners acted upon the plan sanctioned in
the year 2019 completed the same by 26.05.2022
and an application for an occupancy certificate has
been made on that day, the BBMP cannot now rely
upon the withdrawal of the provisional RMP 2031
on 20.06.2022 to deny the occupancy certificate to
the petitioners. It is in that background that he
submits that the pet