ORDER

The petitioner, who has the benefit of the lease vide the Lease Deed dated 30.08.2021 for the property measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.249/2 of Baladare village, Dandiganahalli Hobli, Chennarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District [the subject property], has impugned the third respondent’s order dated 21.08.2023 [Annexure-J]. The third respondent, by this impugned order, has informed the petitioner that he has commenced the construction of a MSD/HSD Outlet [Petrol Bunk] in the subject property without obtaining Building License and Plan Approval and that a police compliant is also filed against him in this regard.

2. The petitioner, apart from impugning this Order dated 21.08.2023, has also sought for declaration that the petitioner is entitled to deemed Building Licence and Trade Licence in terms of the provisions of Sections 64(2) and 70 (2-C) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘the Act’] with a prayer for direction to issue Building Licence and Trade Licence.

3. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the different annexures appended to the writ petition, asserts the following as indubitably established facts and circumstances.

[a] The Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited has issued dealership to the petitioner to establish a MS/HSD retail outlet on Udayapura -

Baladare Highway 75.

[b] The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner has permitted diversion of the subject property for construction of commercial/petrol bunk in the subject property vide the Official Memorandum dated 07.10.2020 [Annexure-B].

[c] The Deputy Commissioner, as the competent authority under the provisions of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, has also issued No-Objection Certificate dated 18.01.2022 [Annexure-E]

.

[d] During the pendency of this writ petition, the National Highway Authority of India has also issued the licence.

Sri Ashok Haranahalli also submits that the second respondent has enabled the entire exercise with issuance of No-Objection on 06.09.2021

4. Sri Ashok Haranahalli submits that the petitioner has filed application on 27.01.2023 with the third respondent for approval of the proposed building which is acknowledged on 31.01.2023, and that the petitioner has commenced construction and almost completed the construction as well because on the lapse of 60 days period from the date of submission of the application for approval, there will be deemed approval for construction of the building in terms of Section 64(2) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel, alluding to caprice as the reason for the impugned order, relies upon the following photograph to assert that this order is issued after the construction is completed.

5. Sri Ashok Haranahalli argues that the third respondent arbitrarily, without considering the petitioner’s application in the light of the above approvals and permissions, has issued the impugned order. Further, the learned Senior Counsel argues that in view of the provisions of Section 70 (2C) of the Act, there will also be a deemed Trade Licence, and therefore, the petitioner is justified in impugning the third respondent’s order dated 21.08.2023 and seeking directions as aforesaid.

6. Sri A. Nagarajappa, the learned counsel for the second and third respondents, significantly, does not dispute that the petitioner has had the advantage of the lease for the Subject Property and a dealership to run MSD/HSD Outlet [Petrol Bunk]; that the Subject Property is diverted for construction of such Outlet under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and that No Objection Certificate is issued by the National Highway Authority of India under the Petroleum Rules, 2002. However, the learned Counsel canvasses that the third respondent is justified in issuing the impugned order because of the following.

[a] The lessor [the owner of the Subject Property] has filed a representation on 09.12.2022 [Annexure-F] seeking permission to construct stating that the premises fo