The authority must issue development rights certificates as mandated by law without discretion, and solid waste management qualifies as a public purpose.

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement/letter dated 19.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.2/Mangalore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) as per Annexure-X and consequently, direct the respondent No.2 to process the claim of the petitioners for grant of transfer of development rights (TDR) and accordingly, issue development rights certificate. The petitioners have also sought for a direction against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the value of TDR from 17.01.2024 i.e., from the date of relinquishment deed till the date of issue of DRC. The petitioners are also seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent Nos.2 and 3 on account of arbitrary action of respondent No.2/MUDA.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Pursuant to Government notification/public notice dated 17.08.2022 for establishing a solid waste management facility in the jurisdiction of Mangalore City Corporation, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 who are the original owners expressed their reluctance to accept the TDR. It is precisely at this juncture, petitioner No.1 stepped in and entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner Nos.2 to 7 and accordingly paid entire sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores and obtained an agreement to sell dated 19.01.2023 which is evidenced at Annexure-B.

Pursuant to notification dated 23.03.2023 published in the Gazette dated 14.06.2023 as per Annexure-C, petitioner Nos.2 to 7/land owners executed a relinquishment deed dated 17.01.2024 evidenced at Annexure-G. Petitioner No.1 who paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores has signed this relinquishment deed as a consenting witness. Pursuant to execution and registration of relinquishment deed dated 17.01.2024, respondent No.3 sent a letter of recommendation addressed to respondent No.2 on 29.01.2024.

Petitioners grievance is that the then Commissioner of respondent No.2 demanded bribe from petitioner No.1 and this lead to filing of a complaint with the Lokayukta on 22.03.2024. Petitioners allege that respondent No.2 only to protract the proceedings and to harass the petitioners, addressed the impugned endorsement to the Secretary, Government of Karnataka purporting to seek a clarification as to whether solid waste management can be considered to be public purpose under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

Feeling aggrieved by the said endorsement, the captioned petition is filed.

3. Respondent No.3/Corporation has filed statement of objections and has supported the petitioners claim contending that it has already sent two recommendations.

4. Per contra, respondent No.2 has contested this petition by filing statement of objections. Placing reliance on Annexure-R2, respondent No.2 has justified its action and issuance of endorsement vide Annexure-X contending that this is a fit case where clarification is warranted to ascertain whether setting up of solid waste management falls within the definition of "public purpose" defined under explanation to Section 14-B of the Act.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Section 14-B of the Act, 1961 provides a statutory mechanism for awarding development rights in lieu of surrender by land owners without compensation. Explanation (j) to Section 14-B clarifies the meaning of "public purpose" and includes inter alia development of infrastructure and facilities essential for urban governan