M/S. BLUE JAY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU-560020.

THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER (PRA) TOWN PLANNING DIVISION BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.03.2021 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the Endorsement dated 31.03.2021, (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.3 inter-alia sought for - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 direction to the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to quash the Revised Master Plan 2015 (Annexure-B), insofar as the subject land is concerned and the petitioners be permitted to use the schedule 'B' property as residential land in terms of conversion orders dated 16.06.2004 and 30.10.2014 (Annexures-C and C1).

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case as averred in the writ petition are that, it is case of the petitioners that, the subject land belonging to the petitioners was converted for residential purpose as per the Notification dated 16.06.2004 (Annexure-C) and Notification dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure-C1) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the Revised Master Plan 2015 was issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 pursuant to the order of conversion made by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 petitioners are assailing the impugned Endorsement dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure-A).

3. I have heard Sri. Bipin Hegde learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel, Smt. Latha S. Shetty; Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Gouthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, as the petitioners have converted the land much before the issuance of the Revised Master Plan 2015 as well as the amendment made to Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and therefore, in terms of the judgment dated 19.06.2012, in W.A.No.161 of 2009 and connected appeal, produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition, the impugned Endorsement dated 31.03.2021 issued by respondent-Bangalore Development - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 Authority is liable to be set aside and direction be issued to the respondents to make necessary correction in the revised mater plan. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

Per contra, Sri. Gowthamdev C. Ullal, learned counsel appearing respondent-Bangalore Development Authority sought to justify the impugned Endorsement dated 31.03.2021 produced at Annexure-B and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State argued on the similar lines of learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners of the schedule property and it is not in dispute that as per - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 Annexure-C and C1 to the writ petition, the land in question has been converted for residential purpose. Taking into consideration that, the land in question has been converted much prior to the amendment to Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Division Bench of this court in identical matter in W.A.No.161 of 2009 and connected appeal disposed of on 19.07.2012 (Annexure-H) confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16220 of 2007 disposed of on

05.11.2008 (Annexure-G) under similar circumstances. In that view of the matter, as this court has consistently directed respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to modify their Master Plan, if the land sought for is converted much prior to the issuance of said Master Plan and therefore, the impugned Endorsement is unsustainable in law and as such, Endorsement dated

31.03.2021 (Annexure-A) is hereby quashed and the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:52313 WP No. 17142 of 2021 respondent-authorities herein are directed to make necessary correction in the Revised Master Plan 2015 in respect of the schedule land is concerned in accordance with law, not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Since the land in question has been converted and therefore, there is no impediment for the petitioners to make use of the schedule land for the purpose of residential use after obtaining necessary orders the competent authority. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31