Writ Petition No. 45224 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 45224 OF 2015 (LB-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: SRI. SUBBANNA S/O NYATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HARAGADDE VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI. T.N. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING MS. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR & MEMBER SECRETARY ANEKAL PLANING AUTHORITY ANEKAL-560 099. 3. SRI. M. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/O VENUS COUNTY LAYOUT JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 105. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 4. M/S. ANURADHA PROPERTY AND TOWNSHIPS PVT LTD. NO.603, 15TH CROSS J.P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE OPP. TO LAST BUS STOP, BANGALORE - 560078. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY SON OF M. SUBBA REDDY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VASU .K, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE NO.AYOPRA/LAO/15/2008-09 DATED 30.6.2009 ALONG WITH APPROVED LAYOUT PLAN ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: COMING ON FOR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the approval accorded by the Planning Authority for the formation of a residential layout in respect of the lands, which are Sy.Nos.65/4, 66/1, 66/2 and 66/3 of Haragadde village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 2. The petition is also filed challenging the notice issued by the Planning Authority calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents relating to the order of conversion that he had obtained in respect of these very lands. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had never applied for approval of the layout plan and a fraud has been committed by making a representation to the Planning Authority that he had also sought for approval and his lands have been included. 4. The petitioner contends that the initial application was made on 04.08.2008 by M.Ramachandra Reddy, who happens to be the Managing Director of respondent No.4. 5. It is submitted that M.Ramachandra Reddy thereafter appears to have given an application on 06.09.2009 to the Planning Authority, whereby he has sought to include even the aforementioned lands belonging to the petitioner and has sought for an approval, and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 the Planning Authority without even noticing this fact has proceeded to approve the layout plan. It is therefore contended that the Planning Authorities committed a serious illegality in approving the layout plan and including land of the petitioner, though the petitioner had not made any application seeking for approval. 6. The learned counsel for the Planning Authority however submits that it did receive an application from M.Ramachandra Reddy in which a Joint Development Agreement was also enclosed and on the strength of this particular agreement, the authorities proceeded to accord approval. 7. Sri.Yogesh S.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2, contends that pursuant to the approval granted by the Planning Authority, respondent No.4 has formed a layout and has also executed sale deeds in respect of the sites formed therein. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 8. He also highlights the fact that the petitioner had himself executed a relinquishment deed and therefore, he cannot be permitted to question the approval accorded by the Planning Authority. 9. During the course of hearing, it was admitted by respondent No.4 and also by the Planning Authority that no extent of the petitioner’s land for which development plan had been approved had been sold. But, it was stated that respondent No.4 had sold 37 sites in the layout that he had formed pursuant to the approval granted by the Planning Authority. 10. It was also stated by the Planning Authority that in order to exclude the land of the petitioner, the plan that it had approved would have to be modified and this could result in some difficulty to 37 purchasers. 11. It is also submitted today that nearly 113 sites have
Decision
been disposed of by respondent No.4 on the strength of the layout plan approved in his favor. But it is however stated that though sites have been formed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 in the land belonging to the petitioner, no third party rights have been created. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner however disputes this contention and submits that no sites have been formed and the petitioner had in fact obtained an order of conversion and has erected industrial sheds. 13. In light of the above facts, it is clear that the land of the petitioner could not have been the subject matter of an approval accorded by the Planning Authority, since the petitioner had not made any application. 14. It is not in dispute that the application was made by M.Ramachandra Reddy and others, and to this application, a Joint Development Agreement was enclosed, which is however disputed by the petitioner’s counsel. 15. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is before this Court contending that he had not even applied for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 approval of a layout plan, it is obvious that the approval accorded by the Planning Authority in respect of the lands of the petitioner i.e., the land bearing Sy.Nos.65/4, 66/1, 66/2 and 66/3 could not have been included by the Planning Authority. 16. Consequently, the approved layout plan dated 30.06.2009 shall stand quashed insofar as these lands are concerned and any Relinquishment Deed executed by the petitioner to this extent shall also stand quashed. 17. However, as a result of this, it is obvious that the Planning Authority would have to modify the layout plan so as to ensure that it is in conformity with the Zonal Regulations and this could affect the 100 and odd purchasers from respondent No.4. 18. In that view of the matter, respondent No.4 is directed to submit a modified plan along with the consent of all the purchasers to the Planning - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16681 WP No. 45224 of 2015 Authority to enable the Planning Authority to modify the plan. 19. If this direction is not complied with, the Planning Authority would be at liberty to modify the plan in an appropriate manner. But it would ensure that minimal damage is caused to the purchasers. 20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to this extent. 21. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81