Karnataka High Court
Sri.L.Balakrishnama Naidu vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
WP No. 2952 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.2952 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.L.BALAKRISHNAMA NAIDU
S/O LATE L GURAPPA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1564/A,
29TH CROSS, 28TH MAIN,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560070
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by JUANITA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
THEJESWINI VIKASA SOUDHA,
Location: HIGH DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560001
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
WP No. 2952 of 2023
3. KANAKAPURA PLANNING AUTHORITY
KATHA NO.469/CA,
CO OPERATIVE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT,
AGRAHARA NEW COLONY,
TUNGANI POST, KANAKAPURA,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AND
MEMBER SECRETARY
KANAKAPURA PLANNING AUTHORITY
4. MEMBER SECRETARY
KANAKAPURA TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY,
KATHA NO.469/CA, CO OPERATIVE
RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT,
AGRAHARA NEW COLONY,
TUNGANI POST,. KANAKAPURA ,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG FOR
MS. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. YOGESH D NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE LETTER
DATED 21/01/2022 IN K.P.A/LAO/65/22-23/2338 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND 4 WITH
RESPECT TO DEMAND TO RELINQUISH 1333.36 SQUARE
METERS OUT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY FREE OF COST AS
ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
WP No. 2952 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned
endorsement dated 21.01.2023 at Annexure-D issued by
the 3rd respondent - Kanakapura Planning Authority.
2. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing
Sy.No.436, Re-Sy.No.436/1, situated at Chiluru Village,
Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramangara District,
having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed
dated 27.08.2009. The property was converted from
agricultural purposes to non-agricultural commercial
purposes vide order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District. The
petitioner submitted a proposal before the 3rd respondent
- Planning Authority seeking sanction of Single Plot
Layout, for putting up commercial establishment.
However by the impugned communication dated
21.01.2023 at Annexure-D, the petitioner was called upon
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
to relinquish that portion of the property towards road side
measuring about 1333.36 square meters for the purpose
of formation of 18 meters road as proposed in the Master
Plan.
3. During the course of these proceedings, in
terms of an interim order dated 04.10.2023 respondents
No.3 and 4 were directed to consider the plan submitted
for approval without insisting on relinquishment of the
area in question. However, it is made clear that no
construction can be put up on the area demarcated for
future expansion of the formation of the road. But while
considering the plan for sanction, the FAR available for the
portion demarcated for future expansion of the road is also
to be taken into consideration. It was directed that in the
event the petitioner succeeding in the above petition, the
benefit would continue with the petitioner and in the event
the petitioner fails, the area demarcated for widening
would have to be handed over by the petitioner to
respondent No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
4. This Court in another similar case, in
W.P.No.25308/2023, by order dated 09.07.2024, having
taken note of a decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this
Court in B.MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN /VS./ STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.14362/2021
dated 12.01.2022, whereby the Mysore Urban
Development Authority was the respondent, had allowed
the writ petition while quashing such endorsement issued
by the authority, nevertheless having regard to the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the
question whether the portion of the land identified for
expansion/formation of a new road in terms of the Master
Plan has to be relinquished by the owner free of cost or
required to be acquired by the planning authority on
payment of compensation, can await the decision of the
Division Bench which was considering the judgment
passed in B.MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN (supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of directing the
planning authority to grant approval for the Single Layout
Plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
similar orders can be passed in this writ petition also
leaving the question open having regard to the issue
pending consideration at the hands of the Division Bench.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent - Planning
Authority submits that similar orders can be passed in this
writ petition, however, this Court should take into
consideration the fact that the Planning Authority has in
the interregnum passed orders approving the Single
Layout Plan proposed by the petitioner. However, the
petitioner is now required to seek the approval of the
construction plan from the same Planning Authority.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of,
with a specific direction to the respondents No.3 and 4 to
consider the application filed by the petitioner on
01.04.2024 for approval of the construction plan
submitted by the petitioner. Approval shall be granted by
respondents No.3 and 4 leaving open the question as to
whether the petitioner will have to relinquish the portion of
the land in question in terms of the impugned
NC: 2024:KHC:29537
endorsement free of costs to the Planning Authority or
whether the Planning Authority will have to pay
compensation for the same.
7. The application filed by the petitioner on
01.04.2024 shall be considered and disposed of by
granting the approval, as expeditiously as possible and at
any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
