M/S Prakruti Century Properties vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3280 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3280 Kant
Judgement Date : 1 September, 2021

Karnataka High Court

M/S Prakruti Century Properties vs State Of Karnataka on 1 September, 2021

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.3388/2021 (LB - RES)

BETWEEN:
M/S PRAKRUTI CENTURY,
PROPERTIES
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE,
AT NO. 10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE-50052,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI CHETHAN KUMAR S.
                                    ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDAN K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY THE
       SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
       RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
       PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
       M. S. BUILDING,
       BANGALORE-560 001.
2.     PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
       ANNESHWARA VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
       DEVANAHALLI TALUIK,
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 110.

                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K. R., HCGP FOR R-1;
    SRI. M. S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                              2



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.12.2020
ISSUED BY R-2, ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT
PETITION AS VOID, INOPERATIVE AND BAD IN LAW AND
ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Both the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the respondents would submit that the

issue in the writ petition stands covered by the

judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No.9241/2020

disposed on 28.07.2021 wherein, this Court after

considering an identical issue held as follows:

"9. It transpires that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Regular First Appeal No.1287/2012 that was pending consideration is disposed by a judgment of this Court dated 16.04.2021. Certain observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the Regular First Appeal No.1287/2012 are germane to be noticed, for consideration of the present lis.

"38. It is well settled that before forming any layout, the authorities have to apply

their mind with due diligence while granting permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose, that too when an application is filed for approval of the plan for formation of layout by the City Development Planning Authority and from the beginning till the formation of layout, it is nobodies case that it is a Forest Land. The State Government - Range Forest Officer in the year 1997 with ulterior motive has opened his eyes and has filed the suit even though they had not taken any specific contention in the earlier suit filed by the present defendant that it was a forest land.

It was their case that they never interfered with the possession of the respondent-

defendant, who was plaintiff in O.S.No.600/1981. The conduct of the State Government in filing the suit after a lapse of 70 years claiming that the suit schedule property is Forest Land is without any basis and it is nothing but harassing its own citizen, which clearly depicts that the suit is filed by the State Government at the instance of the Range Forest Officer to harass the defendant and very strangely, appellant No.2-plaintiff No.2-Range Forest Officer was not available for cross-examination by the defendant and blissfully, the learned Additional Government Pleader has also remained absent on the date when the matter was posted for cross-examination. When the Range Forest Officer-appellant No.2/plaintiff No.2 has adduced his evidence to prove the case that it is a Forest Land, he ought to have offered himself for cross- examination and when he has failed to appear/present himself for cross- examination, presumption of adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiffs/appellants on the basis of the

principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872."

10. Therefore, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court supra, it becomes unmistakably clear that it was never a Forest Land and it was only a harassment at the hands of respondent No.2, to the petitioner. Though the justification given by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in the first blush would be acceptable, that they have power to temporarily suspend the approval or release of sites in Section 76-O of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, be that as it may.

11. But the fact now is that the order impugned in the writ petition dated 10.07.2020 would pale into insignificance in the light of the subsequent judgment of this Court in Regular First Appeal No.1287/2012 as the impugned order formed its basis on the pending Regular First Appeal No.1287/2012 and the interim order granted therein.

12. Therefore the order dated 10.07.2020 has lost its efficacy and is to be effaced with a direction to respondent No.2, who has already released 100% of the sites formed in the residential layout project, to take the approval towards logical end and not stall any further development with regard to issuance of khata in favour of the petitioner or the purchasers of the property from the hands of the petitioner.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: