Judgment · High Court

(By Shri P.Usman, Advocate for Hegde Associates, Advocates) And:

#1. The State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore Represented by its Secretary

#2. The Bangalore Development Authority T.Chowdaiah Road Kumara Park West Bangalore – 560 020 Rep. by its Commissioner … Respondents (Shri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP for respondent No.1 Shri A.Lokanath, Advocate for respondent No.2) ***** (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 27.3.2012 and the resolution dated 25.2.2012 in subject No.31/2012 passed by the Bangalore Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein vide Annexure-F and F1 to the writ petition, etc. This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:- ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

#2. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file statement of objections and would further submit that he believes that similar petitions may have been allowed by a learned Single Judge and the same are pending in appeal before a Division Bench and seeks to verify whether this is so.

#3. However, the petition can be disposed of, on a point of law namely, whether the petitioner could be denied the relief in the following background. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:2)

#4. The petitioner submits that the land measuring 2 acres 25 guntas including 3 guntas of kharab land in survey No.13 of Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was ancestral property of the petitioner and he was in possession of the same. The revenue records stood in his name. The land is said to be acquired for the scheme called “Hi-tech City and Road between Sarjapur Road and Hosur Road” by respondent No.2 by virtue of an order passed by respondent No.1, dated 23.12.2004. A final notification was issued under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, dated 14.2.2005, published in the Karnataka Gazette on

15.2.2005. The notification proposing to acquire the land was challenged before this Court in various writ petitions and the writ petitions were allowed by the order dated 30.7.2008, whereby the notifications were quashed holding that the impugned notifications were non est and were issued without authority of law. By virtue of the said order, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s lands along with other lands having been given up and the order having attained (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:6)(cid:1)(cid:2) finality, the petitioner was free to develop his property. The petitioner therefore, applied for change of land user from industrial to residential user, as the master plan indicated that the zone was treated as an industrial zone. However, respondent No.2 had issued an endorsement on 1.3.2011 to state that 5 guntas of land within the extent of 2 acres 22 guntas, ought to be kept in abeyance. Even if the balance of the lands could be classified as residential as it may be required for its project, namely, “Road between Sarjapur Road and Hosur Road”, notwithstanding, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the very project having been quashed, as it was within the power of the Authority to recommence the acquisition proceedings. It is the petitioner’s case that in respect of such denial, he had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.26981/2011 and the same was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner to use the land along with the other land which was already acquired for its project, where the change of land user was permitted. With a further observation that respondent No.2 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:1)(cid:2) – Authority could have used the land so reserved for its project within five years from the date of the Master Plan, coming into force, within five years from 22.6.2007. Notwithstanding that 5 years have elapsed and the respondent – Authority not having taken any steps to notify the said extent of 5 guntas of land, the petitioner having indicated that there is no possibility of the land being so utilised after a lapse of five years, the respondent – Authority has insisted that it can be utilised and it would be reserved for the said project. In that background, the petitioner is before this Court.

#5. On the face of it, from a perusal of Section 69 (2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, it is patent that the Authority ought to have acquired the said land for the project within five years from the date of Master Plan coming into force. Since that date has long passed, the question of the Authority exercising its power of eminent domain in respect of the land in question would lapse and therefore, there is no impediment for the land to be classified as residential, as has (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:1)(cid:2) been done in respect of the remaining extent of petitioner’s land. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Annexures – F and F1 stand quashed. The respondent – Bangalore Development Authority is directed to address the representation of the petitioner and to reclassify the land as prayed for by the petitioner with expedition, in any event, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUDGE AHB