- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13

TH

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 24726 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI M. GOVINDAPPA

S/O LATE MOTAPPA

AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

OCC AGRICULTURE

REPRESENTED BY HIS G P A HOLDER

SHRI T G CHANDRU

RESIDING AT NO.239 THINDLU VILLAGE

VIDYARANYAPURA POST

BENGALURU-560097.

2. T G CHANDRU

S/O GOVINDAPPA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

OCC:AGRICULTURE

RESIDING AT NO.239 THINDLU VILLAGE

VIDYARANYAPURA POST

BENGALURU-560097.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. G. A. SRIKANTE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560001.

R

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

2. THE NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY

REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

2ND MAIN ROAD

SADASHIVANAGARA

NELAMANGALA TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1;

SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.09.2021 BEARING

NUMBER LAO 58 2005-06 ANNEXURE - K AND LETTER DATED

27.07.2021 BEARING NUMBER LAO 58 2006-06 AT ANNEXUR E

K1 ISSUED BY R-2 DIRECT THE R2 TO RELEASE THE

REMAINING SITES,1,2,3,22,38,73 AND 74 AS PER THE

ORDERS OF R1 DATED 06.07.2013 APPEAL NO. 198 BMR /

2012 ANNEXURE - G.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for t he

following reliefs:

a) Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any

other appropriate writ or order or direction,

to quash the endorsement dated

16.09.2021 bearing number NAYOPRA LAO

58 2005-06 Annexure - K and letter dated

27.07.2021 bearing number NAYOPRA LAO

58 2006-06 at Annexure K1 issued by R-2

b) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus

directing the R2 to release the remaining

sites,1,2,3,22,38,73 and 74 as per the

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

orders of R1 dated 06.07.2013 Appeal No.

AE 198 BMR/2012 Annexure - G.

c) Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the R1 to initiate appropriate legal

proceedings against the learned officials of

R2 who are responsible for not releasing the

sites even after directions issued by R1 as

per Annexure - E and G through competent

officer.

d) Any other appropriate writ or order or

direction, that be deemed fit under the

facts and circumstances of the case

including an order for costs be passed, in

the interest of justice and equity.

2. Petitioners are owners of land carved out of

Sy.No.184/1 measuring 5 acres 15 guntas at

Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The

petitioner obtained conversion of the land from

agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and applied

to respondent No.2 for sanction of layout plan in

terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and

Country Planning Act, 1961 [‘KTCP Act’ for short].

3.

The respondent sanctioned the said plan on

26.05.2006, in pursuance thereof the petitioners

- 4 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

formed 90 sites of different dimensions, the highest

being 30 x 50 ft. and other sites being lesser than

that. 60% of the sites were released numbering

nearly 54 sites and the balance 40% were remaining

to be released. Subsequently, when an application

was filed by the petitioner for release of balance

40%, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 6.03.2009

informed the petitioners that the said release cannot

be made on account of the Master Plan proposing 45

mtr road in the layout which would cover many of

the sites which were not released.

4.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an

appeal under Section 10(5) of the Bangalore

Metropolitan Region Development Act [‘BMRD Act’ for

short] which came to be allowed vide order dated

10.01.2011 directing the respondents to release

balance 40% sites with liberty to acquire any land

required for road widening.

- 5 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

5. In pursuance thereof the petitioners made a

representation on 22.02.2011 for release 40%

balance sites, when a few of the sites were released

except 7 sites. Though the said sites were not

released and the petitioner took up the same,

respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to allot

alternate sites to the purchaser of seven sites and

make available the said sites for widening of the

road.

6.

Once again petitioner filed an appeal under Section

10(5) of BMRD Act challenging this order. The Prl.

Secretary, Urban Development Department set-aside

the endorsement dated 9.07.2012 vide his order

dated 6.07.20213 and directed respondents to

comply with the order dated 10.01.2011 passed in

earlier appeal passed under Section BMRD Act.

7.

The petitioner once again made a request for release

of the sites on 6.08.2021 when once again an

endorsement is claimed to be issued on 16.09.2021

- 6 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

directing the petitioners to relinquish 45 mtrs of land

required for formation of road. Much belatedly even

the conversion of the land in Sy.No.184/1 was

questioned by calling upon the petitioner to produce

the sketch of the said land and if there conversion

order relating thereto. It is aggrieved by the same,

the petitioners are before this Court.

8.

Sri.G.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that,

8.1.

The entire action on part of the respondents is

completely malafide inasmuch as the

respondents have not followed the directions

issued in two of the appeals filed under Section

10(5) and the respondents have been acting on

their own accord dehors the applicable law, as

also in violation of applicable law inasmuch as

once formation of layout has been completed, it

was but required that these sites be released in

- 7 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

favour of the petitioners which has not been so

done.

8.2.

The respondents have from time to time taken

up some stand or the other to deprive the

petitioners of the sites formed by them which

have already been sold to third parties on the

basis of the plan sanction granted and it is the

bounden duty on part of the respondents to

execute the registered sale deeds in favour of

such purchasers which has not been done by

respondent No.2.

8.3.

On these grounds learned counsel submits that

the petition is required to be allowed and the

submission made by respondent No.2 for

relinquishment of land of the petitioners for

formation of 45 mtrs road, as also calling upon

the petitioners to produce the conversion order

is required to be quashed.

- 8 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

9. Sri.Yogensh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondent

No.2-Planning Authority would submit that in the

Master Plan which has been approved by the State

Government, there is a road which has been shown

and in order to implement the said road, it is

required that the petitioners relinquish the area

coming within the land demarcated for the road.

Instead of relinquishing the same, the petitioners

have filed the present writ petition.

10.

He further submits that some of the sites which have

been sought for release or area demarcated for

formation of 45 mtr road in the Master Plan, as such,

respondent No.2 is unable to release the same since

the property is sold to third parties and their interest

may be adversely affected.

11.

Learned AGA submits that it is for respondent No.2 to

implement the order dated 10.01.2011 in Appeal

No.1/2009 passed by the Addl. Chief Secretary to

Government, Urban Development Department in

- 9 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

Appeal filed under Section 10(5) of BMRD Act

wherein liberty has been reserved to the respondent

to acquire the land, if required. On this ground, he

submits that issue is required to be addressed by

respondent No.2.

12.

Heard Sri.G.A.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri.Naveen Chandrashekhar, learned

AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik,

learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused

papers.

13.

The present case is one more in a long list of matters

where the Planning Authorities are impinging upon

the property rights of the citizens of the country

inasmuch as the Planning Authority having

sanctioned a layout plan on 26.05.2006, on which

basis the petitioners have acted, formed the layout,

sold the sites to third parties, some of those sites not

being released by the Planning Authority on the

ground that there is proposed road located in the

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

same area where the sites sought for release are

located.

14.

It is rather strange that once the Planning Authority

who is supposed to consider all planning

requirements and act under the KTCP Act, 1961 for

orderly development of the State and urban areas,

has after sanctioning a layout wants to now form a

road in the said land.

15.

Any action and permission taken by the Planning

Authority would be acted upon by third parties

believing the said action and permission to be valid

and correct, more so in respect of layouts where

ordinary citizens of the country would purchase the

plots with their hard earned money, savings and or

by obtaining loans to establish a roof over their

heads.

16.

A layout having been formed by the petitioners and

petitioners having sold all the sites to third parties

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

and it is only awaiting release of the sites so that

sale deeds could be executed and registered. After

having sanctioned the plan and after having released

83 sites out of 90 sites, respondent No.2 has now

called upon the petitioner to furnish the sketch of the

land situated in Sy.No.184/1 and the conversion

orders in order to verify if the conversion orders are

proper or not. The conversion orders having been

passed way back on 4.02.2006, the plan sanction

having been granted on 26.05.2006, release of

various sites having been made from time to time,

the fact that respondent No.2 has called upon the

petitioners to furnish copy of the conversion order

with survey sketch on 16.09.2021 only indicates that

respondent No.2 is clutching at straws to usurp the

property of the petitioners and or deprive the

petitioners of their right to use of the properties in

terms of the plan sanction granted by respondent

No.2 itself.

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

17. A perusal of Annexure-B being the layout plan

sanction dated 26.05.2006 indicates that sites which

have not been released viz., sites No. 1, 2, 3, 73 and

74 are spread out in the layout inasmuch as site

No.73 and 74 are separated from site No.1 to 3 by

five internal roads and site Nos. 1, 2, 3 being in

sequence, there are three rows of sites, on that site

till the last where site Nos. 73, 74 to 75 are located.

Needless to say that other sites in site Nos.9, 10, 11,

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 54, 55, 56,

57,58, 59, 70, 71, 72, 75 and 75 have already been

sold and registered sale deeds have been executed in

favour of the purchasers.

18.

The manner in which the demands have been made

by respondent No.2-Authorities and respondent No.2

has not complied with the orders earlier passed on

10.01.2011 in Appeal No.1/2009 by the Addl. Chief

Secretary to Government, Urban Development

Authority and the order dated 6.07.2013 passed by

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

the Appellate Authority and the Prl. Secretary, Urban

Development Department in Appeal

No.198/BMR/2012 at Annexure-G would only indicate

the scant disregard that respondent No.2 has to such

orders when both the Appellate Authorities had

directed respondent No.2 to release the remaining

sites.

19.

The only inference that this Court can draw when

respondent No.2 is not complying with the orders

passed by the Appellate Authorities under Section

10(5) is that respondent No.2 has no regard for such

orders and has continued in its persistent demands

for lack of better work, dishonest demand.

20.

The Planning Authority being a public body is

required to act for the public and in the interest of

the public and not in the manner so as to deprive the

rights of the public by resorting to non-release of

sites and trying to coerce the citizen of the country

forcing for relinquishing or releasing its property for

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

formation of road since the property has not been

released by respondent No.2.

21.

It is in these circumstances that the petitioners being

citizens of the country have been driven to this Court

after having approached and succeeded twice earlier

and the two appeals filed under Section 10(5) of the

BMRD Act. It is, therefore, required that respondent

No.1 to look into this matter and take appropriate

action such that Authorities like the Planning

Authority will not impinge upon the property rights of

citizens of the country in a manner unknown to law

or contrary to law.

22.

In view of the above observation having come to a

conclusion that Annexure-K and K1 have been issued

without any authority and only to harass the

petitioners without respondent No.2 having any

authority, I pass the following:

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is

issued. The endorsement dated 16.01.2021

at Annexure-K and letter dated 16.09.2021

at Annexure-K1 are hereby quashed.

ii.

Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith

comply with the order dated 10.01.2011 at

Annexure-E, dated 6.07.2013, Annexure-G

and release the balance sites of the

petitioners within 15 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order.

iii.

The petitioners are permitted to serve copy

of this order on respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 shall act on a printout of

the uploaded copy of this order without

insisting on a certified copy. In the event of

respondent No.2 having any doubt about the

veracity of the order, respondent No.2 could

scan the QR code available on the copy of

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:33791

WP No. 24726 of 2022

this order or to visit the website of this Court

to verify the authenticity thereof.

iv.

Though this court could have imposed cost

on respondent No.2, due to fervent pleading

of Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for

respondent No.1, this Court refrains from

doing so.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67