Karnataka High Court
M/S Dhariwal Lifespaces Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 13080 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S DHARIWAL LIFESPACES PVT LTD
OFFICE AT MANIKCHAND HOUSE
FINAL PLOT NO.2,3 AND 4
SINGASANDRA VILLAGE
HOSUR RAOD BANGALORE 560 068
REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR PRAKASH
RASHIKLAL DHARIWAL
THE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REP BY GPA HOLDER
Digitally signed by
JUANITA 2. M/S SHANKESHWAR LAND MARK LLP
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
NO.110/2, 1ST FLOOR
COURT OF LALBAGH MAIN ROAD
KARNATAKA
KISHNAPPA COMPOUND
BANGALORE560 027
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI MAHAVEER SHANKERLAL MEHTA
THE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S V., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVT. KARNATAKA
4TH FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002
4. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING SOUTH
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DTD 23/12/2022 BEARING NO.
BBMP/AD.DIR/JD SOUTH/0044/19-20 ISSUED BY R-4
DEMANDING OF THE DEMAND NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-A AS FAR
AS DEMANDING OF RELINQUISHMENT OF RESERVED ROAD
WIDENING OF AREA MEASURING 2409.98 SQM (FREE OF
COST) AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
WITHOUT ACQUIRING THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned demand
noticed dated 23.12.2022 at Annexure-A issued by the 4th
respondent Joint Director of Town Planning (South), BBMP,
Bangalore to the extent where an additional condition has
been imposed in the demand notice that the petitioner
should relinquish the portion of land reserved for widening
the road, measuring 2409.98 sq. mtrs, free of costs,
before issuing licence and plan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
similar conditions imposed in the demand notices were the
subject matter of several writ petitions including
W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters in the case
of Dr.Arun Kumar.B.C /vs./State of Karnataka and
others, which were decided on 17.01.2022. Learned
counsel submits that the co-ordinate bench considered the
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
objections raised at the hands of the respondent - Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that the conditions
were imposed in terms of the circular dated 29.02.2016
and the co-ordinate bench struck down the said circular
dated 29.02.2016 issued by the Commissioner, BBMP and
also quashed and set aside the portion of the demand
notice where such a condition was imposed.
3. Having gone through the said judgment in the
case of Dr.Arun Kumar.B.C (supra), this Court finds that
the co-ordinate bench found that such a circular issued by
the Commissioner directing the owners who approached
the BBMP for sanction of a building licence and plan to
surrender a portion of the properties earmarked for
widening of road for free of costs was clearly in violation of
the provisions contained in Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India. It was also found that endorsements
issued to several writ petitioners declining to sanction the
plan unless the applicants comply with the requirements of
surrendering a portion of property free of costs were also
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
not in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act. It was held that the
provisions contained in the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act stipulate surrendering of the roads which
were formed in a new layout, in terms of the sanction
plan, but however, if the planning authority or the local
authority sought any portion of a private property for the
purposes of road widening etc., then the same could be
done only after giving compensation, even it is earmarked
for the purpose of formation of road or widening of the
road. Learned counsel would further submit that the said
decision has been confirmed at the hands of the Division
Bench in W.A.No.335/2022 and connected matters.
Learned counsel would therefore submit that the writ
petition may be allowed while quashing the portion of the
demand notice of which the petitioner is aggrieved.
4. Although learned counsel for the respondent -
BBMP seeks to raise objections, nevertheless since the
decision of the co-ordinate bench has been confirmed by
NC: 2023:KHC:25654
WP No. 13080 of 2023
the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner herein also deserves the same relief
that was granted to the writ petitioners in the case of
Dr.Arun Kumar.B.C (supra).
5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned demand notice dated 23.12.2022 issued by the
Joint Director of Town Planning (South),BBMP, Bangalore
to the extent where an additional condition is imposed
calling upon the petitioner to relinquish free of cost portion
of the property measuring 2409.98 sq.mtrs., is hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondent - Joint
Director/competent authority is hereby directed to
sanction the plan on collecting the requisite fee and
without imposing the condition of relinquish of any portion
of the property belonging to the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KLY
