Writ Petition No. 28118 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 28118 OF 2015 (LB-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. R PUSHPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O P R RAMESH AKA RAMANNA R/O KAMMAGONDANAHALLI PATTANAYAKANA HALLI GOWDGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUKA, SIRA 572 137 DIST TUMKUR (BY SRI. V.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE ) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 572 101 2 . MEMBER SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY AND NAGAR SABHE, SIRA SIRA 572 137 3 . P S NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O P M SIDDAPPA R/O SRI RANGA NILAYA BALAJI NAGAR MAIN ROAD OPPOSITE DR CHIDANANDAPPA S CLINIC SIRA 572 137, DIST TUMKUR . Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 4 . SMT NAGARATHNA W/O P S THYAGRAJA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS C/O P M SIDDAPPA PROP RANGANATH OIL MILL BALAJI NAGAR, SIRA 572 137 5 . SUMAN P THYAGRAJA S/O P S THYAGRAJA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS C/O P M SIDDAPPA PROP RANGANATH OIL MILL BALAJI NAGAR, SIRA 572 137 6 . SIRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SIRA - 572 137, DIST. TUMKUR
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. S.RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-6; SRI.R.B.SADASIVAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-B APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE R-2 TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SIRA IN SY.No.45/5 OR SIRA VILLAGE AND ANNEXURE-C THE LAYOUT PLAN AS APPROVED WHEREIN R-4 & 5 HAVE EARMARKED 50 PLOTS AND APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE R-2 TOWN MUNICIPALITY, SIRA VIDE ANNEXURE-E. ORDER AND ANNEXURE-F IS THE LAYOUT PLAN WHEREIN 30 PLOTS HAVE BEEN EARMARKED IS SY.No.45/1 OF SIRA AS BEING APPROVED ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND IN VIOLATION OF SATATUOTORY PROVISIONS OF KTCP ACT AND KMC ACT 1962 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 23.01.2025, COMING ON - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA 1. The petitioner is challenging the approval accorded to CAV ORDER a layout plan in respect of Survey No.45/5 of Sira village and Survey No.45/1 also of Sira village. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the mutations made pursuant to the gift deed executed by respondent No.3 in favour of the Government in respect of the areas earmarked for roads in the said layout plan. 2. The petitioner is also seeking for a mandamus to be issued to respondent No.2 to conduct a spot inspection and survey of land bearing Sy.Nos.45/5 and 45/1 and to take possession of the areas surrendered for civic amenities, parks, roads, and exclude the portion of the petitioner’s land measuring 297’ * 160’ in Sy.No.45 of Sira village. 3. The pleadings and the written submissions of the petitioner indicate the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 (a) The land bearing Sy.No.45/5 measuring 03 acres 14 guntas was permitted to be used for non agricultural purposes on the request of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by the Deputy Commissioner, through an
Decision
order dated 10.01.2011. (b) On the basis of the said permission, respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought for sanction of a layout plan with respondent No.2, i.e., the Town Planning Authority. The Planning Authority on consideration of the application proceeded to accord sanction to the layout plan which permitted formation of 50 sites. (c) Similarly, in respect of an extent of 02 acres 12- 3/4th guntas in Sy.No.45/1, the Deputy Commissioner granted permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes i.e., residential purpose by passing an order on 31.08.2013. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 (d) On the basis of this permission, respondent No.3 proceeded to seek for approval of a layout plan in respect of this extent of 02 acres 12-3/4th guntas and respondent No.2—Planning Authority proceeded to accord sanction to the layout plan permitting formation of 30 sites. (e) It is the approval to these two layout plans, which were obtained by respondent Nos.3 to 5, in which about 80 sites are to be formed, are the subject matter of the instant petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land which was gifted to her and her husband by her mother-in- law has been included in these layout plans and therefore, the grant of permission to form a layout, in which her land is included, is illegal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.V.Gunjal, both orally as well as through his written submissions, has put forth the contention - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 that the family of respondent Nos.3 to 5 did not own the property to the extent that they had sought for approval from the Planning Authority and they had basically included the land of the petitioner. Therefore, the entire process of culminating the approval of the layout plan and the subsequent relinquishment of that portion of land in favour of the State was illegal. 6. In my view, the prayers made in the present writ petition do not merit acceptance for the following reasons: 7. The petitioner contends that her mother-in-law executed two gift deeds on 16.02.2002. The first gift deed was executed in favour of her husband P.R.Ramesh and was in respect of the property measuring 165 * 142 + ½112 2 feet. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 8. The second gift deed is in respect of an extent of measuring 165 * 25 47 + 2 feet. 9. However, both these registered gift deeds do not contain any recital that these lands, which were gifted to the petitioner and her husband, were carved out of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5. The properties are described in the schedule as properties bearing Assessment Nos.2824:A:2722:A:4927:A and 2824:2722:4927. 10. In the gift deed, there is a recital that this property was fallen to the share of the petitioner’s mother-in- law under a partition deed dated 06.02.2002. However, this partition deed is not placed on record. 11. Be that as it may, since there is nothing on record to indicate that this particular piece of land formed part of land bearing Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land is situated in Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 and this has been - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 included in the layout plan submitted to respondent No.2. 12. It may also be pertinent to state here that petitioner admits that respondent No.3 had instituted a suit in O.S. No.35 of 2014 against the husband of the petitioner seeking for a decree of injunction. It is also admitted by the petitioner that petitioner along with her husband had instituted a suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014 which was a suit for declaration and injunction. The parties herein also admit that both the suits were clubbed together. 13. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 have placed on record the copy of the order dated 31.10.2014 passed in the said suits, which indicate that respondent No.3—P.S.Naraynappa had filed a memo seeking for withdrawal of his suit (OS No.35 of 2014) as not pressed and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order also indicates that the petitioner—R.Pushpa had filed an application for - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 withdrawal of her suit and for reserving liberty to file a fresh suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014, which was filed by her and her husband for declaration. The order copy indicates that her application was granted and O.S. No.46 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit. 14. It is admitted by the petitioner that despite this liberty, no fresh suit has been filed. 15. It may be pertinent to state here that these suits were relevant to Sy.No.45/1 and 45/5 of Sira village and it is therefore clear that the petitioner had filed a suit in O.S. No.46 of 2014 seeking for declaratory decree in respect of her property which she claims was a part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5. 16. If the petitioner had instituted O.S. No.46 of 2014 and had ultimately withdrawn the same with liberty to file a fresh suit, the petitioner cannot put forth the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 contention that her land was a part of Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5. 17. In other words, unless the competent Civil Court declares that the property that was gifted to her and her husband by her mother-in-law was in fact relatable to Sy.Nos.45 or 45/1 or 45/5, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that her land has been included in the layout plans approved in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. 18. It may also be pertinent to state here that the petitioner has not produced any records to indicate that the property bearing Sy.Nos.45/1 or 45/5 or 45 stood in the name of her mother-in-law at any point of time. 19. In other words, there is no material on record to indicate that the land of the petitioner was a part of Sy.No.45/5 or 45/1 and that she has a right to question the layout plans approved in favour of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6285 WP No. 28118 of 2015 respondent Nos.3 to 5. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is therefore dismissed. 20. It will however have to be stated here that it would be open for the petitioner to institute a suit on the strength of the liberty granted to her in O.S. No.46 of 2014, if so permissible in law, as of now. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2