When a municipal body initiates proceedings alleging encroachment or plan violations, it must act in strict accordance with statutory procedures, providing the affected party with a fair opportunity, a personal hearing, and a reasoned decision based on considered evidence, before passing any adverse order or withholding an occupancy certificate.

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE RECORDS; ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.21441/2022 ETC.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

These special inter-Court of Appeals have been filed impugning the common judgment and order passed on 23.11.2023 by this Court in W.P.Nos.3728/2022, 21441/2022 and 20383/2023.

2. The petitioner has applied the building plans for approval for construction of the commercial complex under the brand name ‘D-Mart’. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Sy.No.20 and 8 of Ammani Byrathi Khane Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk having purchased the same from the owners vide sale deed dated 30.03.2021. The Petitioner had got this agricultural land for non-agricultural use after obtaining necessary ‘no objection certificate’. The appellant-Corporation has sanctioned the building plans for construction of commercial complex of the petitioner on 29.02.2021.

3. It appears that some local residents of the area had complained to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as “BBMP” for short) alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon Rajakaluve or Water feed Canal that has resulted in flooding the area. In view of the aforesaid complaint, a notice dated 17.01.2022 came to be issued to the petitioner, which was replied to on 18.01.2022. Thereafter, the BBMP had issued notices under Sections 238 and 239 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BBMP Act’ for short) on 27.01.2022, calling upon the petitioner to stop construction on the ground that the petitioner had encroached upon the ‘Haddigidada Halla’. The said notices have been challenged in W.P.No.3728/2022. The writ Court vide order dated 18.02.2022 had stayed the operation of the said notices.

4. During the pendency of W.P.No.3728/2022, the Joint Commissioner, Mahadevapura Zone had observed that the building plan sanction in favour of the petitioner would be required to be cancelled on account of encroachment of a ‘Haddigidada Halla’. In pursuance to the said letter written by the Joint Commissioner, a show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 12.09.2022 and thereafter, an enquiry notice was also issued on 26.09.2022. The same were challenged by filing another writ petition in W.P.No.21441/2022.

5. The third writ petition in W.P.No.20383/2023 came to be filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent-Corporation to issue occupancy certificate in respect of commercial complex constructed by the petitioner in pursuance to the plan sanctioned by the BBMP.

6. Learned Single Judge having examined the RTC produced before the writ Court in pursuance to the order passed and observed that the undivided Sy.No.20 measuring 2 acres and 26 guntas, out of which, 2 guntas has been denoted as ‘A’ Karab. There was no demarcation of alleged 9 guntas of karab which allegedly had been encroached upon by the petitioner in respect of ‘Haddigidada Halla’. It is also said that if there existed Haddigidada Halla or 9 guntas of karab land that would have to be demarked as ‘B’ karab and not ‘A’ Karab. There was no ‘B’ karab land at all in Sy.No.20 in the revenue record.

7. Learned Single Judge also noted that the entire proceedings got initiated by the Corporation on the basis of encroachment of ‘Haddigidada Halla’, but the ‘Haddigidada Halla’ is not shown in Revised Master Pl