Writ Petition No. 25149 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25149 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 25145 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) IN WP No. 25149/2016 BETWEEN: 1. M/S TEAM 3 ENGINEERS & BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.7, III CROSS, NEAR BANASWADI RAILWAY STATION, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 033, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. PAUL E GEORGE. (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YASHIR ALI., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011. 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 GOVT. OF KARNATAKA NEW REVENUE BUILDING K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU. (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.28.04.2016)
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. N R JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DT.02.03.2023, SRI R KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENERS) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 16.04.2016 AT ANENXURE-P AS BEING BAD, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT SANCTITY OF LAW ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND ETC. IN WP NO. 25145/2016 BETWEEN: 1. MR. GEORGE JOSEPH S/O LATE MR K V JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. MRS DEEPA GEORGE W/O MR GEORGE JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.121/123 II MAIN, CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT HOSUR MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 029. (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YASHIR ALI., ADVOCATE) ..PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 AND: 1. 2. 3. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA NEW REVENUE BUILDING K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU. (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.28.04.2016) (BY SRI. N R JAGADEESHWARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3; V/O DT. 02.03.2023, SRI. R KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENERS) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 16.4.2016 AT ANENXURE-P AS BEING BAD, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT SANCTITY OF LAW, ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 1. These facts are not in dispute. ORAL ORDER 2. On an application by the petitioners for construction of building in their respective properties in Sy.No.67/1, the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) sanctioned the building plan. 3. It is not in dispute that prior to sanction of building plan, khatha was in fact registered in the name of the petitioners. 4. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioners claim title over their property under the registered Sale Deed of the year 2006 and the plan was also approved on 03.04.2007, i.e., after they had purchased the properties. This plan that was sanctioned on 03.04.2007 is however sought to be cancelled by the impugned order. The reason stated for cancellation was that the petitioners had suppressed material fact and obtained the sanction. In other words, it is the contention of the BBMP that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 the plan was obtained by misrepresentation and suppression of facts. However, the impugned endorsement does not really indicate as to what was the fact that was suppressed or in what manner the misrepresentation was made by the petitioners. 5. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the BBMP submits that the buildings, in respect of which the BBMP had accorded sanction for construction, have in fact, come up in a portion of the property which belongs to BBMP i.e., in Sy.No.77. It is contended that the plan that was sought for was in respect of properties which should have been part of Sy.No.67/1, but the petitioners using the plans that have been granted to them in respect of their properties in Sy.No.67/1 had in fact encroached upon the property of the BBMP and put up the construction in Sy.No.77 and therefore, the BBMP was justified in canceling the plan. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 6. It is to be stated here at the outset that the plan as stated above was approved in the year 2007 and nearly nine years thereafter cancellation has been ordered under the impugned orders. 7. It is not in dispute that during this period of nearly 10 years, the BBMP had in fact issued notices under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and had not only passed the provisional order, but also an order of confirmation which was ultimately challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has in fact remanded the matter and the matter is pending consideration. In these proceedings, the contention of the BBMP was essentially that the buildings that had been erected by the petitioners were in contravention of the sanctioned plan. However, the BBMP did not contend that the buildings were put up in a portion of its property and hence, the proceedings were only confined to deviation from the sanctioned plan. It is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 therefore clear that the BBMP has raised this contention of petitioners putting up construction in the properties which belongs to BBMP only after initially contending that there was a deviation from the sanctioned plan. 8. It is to be stated here that the question as to whether the property belongs to the BBMP or to the petitioners or whether the buildings in questions have been constructed in Sy.No.67/1 or Sy.No.77 cannot be unilaterally decided by the BBMP. Even if a survey is conducted by the officials of the BBMP or by the Government that cannot determine the fact as to whether the buildings are in Sy.No.67/1 or Sy.No.77. If the BBMP were to be of the view that the buildings that have been erected by the petitioners fall within a portion of BBMP’s land, they would have to initiate appropriate proceedings under relevant law to recover possession of its property. The BBMP, however, at any rate, cannot proceed to cancel the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 sanctioned plan on the ground that the plan has been obtained by misrepresenting the fact. 9. As already observed above, the impugned orders do not indicate as to what was the misrepresentation/suppression of fact made by the petitioners. Merely making a statement that there was misrepresentation/suppression of fact would not suffice especially when in the earlier proceedings the only contention of the BBMP was that there was a deviation from the sanctioned plan. I am therefore of the view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are quashed. 10. However, liberty is reserved to the BBMP to initiate proceedings in the manner known to law and establish that the buildings that have been put up have actually come up in the land belonging to BBMP i.e., Sy.No.77. It is also needless to state that the proceedings initiated by the BBMP regarding deviation of the sanctioned plan shall remain - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1535 WP No. 25149 of 2016 C/W WP No. 25145 of 2016 unaffected by this order and the BBMP would be at liberty to proceed with insofar as it relates to deviation of the sanctioned plan.
Decision
11. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed off. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53