IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.39971 – 39973/2015 (LA – UDA) BETWEEN :
1. B.S.NAGENDRA S/O LATE B.SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.116/2, 2ND FLOOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 2. B.S.GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE B.SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.116/2, 2ND FLOOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003 3. M.NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OPPOSITE RAMANA MAHARISHI CENTRE, NAGASHETTYHALLI, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.) AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MULTISTORIED BUILDINS, Dr. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSURU-575 005 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R-3; R-1 & R-2 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION OF THE R-3 MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DATED 12.03.2013 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ITEM NO.1277 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have assailed the Resolution of respondent No.3 Mysuru Urban Development Authority dated 12.3.2013 insofar as it relates to item No.1277 as well as the Notification issued by the respondent No.1 dated 1.8.2012 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to include the extent of 150 acres owned by the petitioners in various survey numbers as per Annexures-‘H’ and ‘J’ situated in Ilwala Village, Ilwala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk in “RESIDENTIAL ZONE” in the Final Master Plan for Mysuru-Nanjangud Local Planning Area 2031 and further a direction to the respondents to implement and comply with the undertaking given to this Court in W.P.No.3385/2008 dated 22.07.2010 at Annexure-‘L’ and include the extent of 150 acres (owned by the petitioners) in various survey numbers as claimed.
2. The petitioners are claiming to be the absolute owners of certain lands situated in Ilwala Village, Ilwala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk in several survey numbers totally measuring 150 acres including an extent of 17 acres 19 guntas in certain survey numbers which have been converted for non-agricultural residential purposes and the layout plan has also been approved by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (for short ‘MUDA’).
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the State Government issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’) proposing to acquire 441.06 acres of land for formation of Industrial Layout by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short ‘KIADB’) in Ilawala and Mydnahalli villages of Mysuru Taluk vide Notification dated 6.10.2006. Subsequently, the Government took a decision to delete an extent of 90.29 acres of various survey numbers in Ilwala village from acquisition in favour of the Society subject to the condition that the said area should be developed as a residential layout. The KIADB in turn, pursuant to the direction issued by the Government, also issued an endorsement to the Society stating that the said extent of land measuring 90.29 acres in various survey numbers of Ilwala village have been deleted from acquisition. However, the said endorsement was subject to the condition that the lands shall be converted for residential purposes after obtaining permission from the competent Authority and obtaining sanction plan for residential layout from MUDA.
4. It is further contended that certain other adjacent and adjoining lands situated in Ilwala and Maidanahalli villages of Mysuru Taluk were de-notified by the State Government. The State Government has given an undertaking to this Court in W.P.No.3385/2008 and other connected matters disposed of on 22.7.2010 that an extent of 263.30 acres already having been de-notified, the remaining extent of 177.16 acres spread out in different pockets and not being contiguous, an industrial layout cannot be formed.
5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the said undertaking given by the State Government before this Court, the respondent No.3 rejecting the representation of the petitioners seeking to earmark the lands in question under Residential Zone of the Master Plan for Mysuru is contrary to the undertaking given before this Court in W.P.No.3385/2008 and allied matters. However, in the Final Master Plan the area in question has been designated as Industrial Zone contrary to the provisions of the KIAD Act. Learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions as aforesaid, seeks for allowing the writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 MUDA would submit that the final master plan has been published by MUDA in the year 2016, the relief sought for by the petitioners does not survive for consideration. It is submitted that, no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Planning Authority to change the particular land use from one purpose to another only based on the request made by the petitioners by-passing the procedure contemplated under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, accordingly seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the Final Master Plan has already been published by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 2016 designating the lands in question for industrial purpose. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3385/2010 was rendered in the context where the State Government has undertaken before this Court that an industrial layout cannot be formed in the area in question and therefore, neither the Government nor MUDA cannot go beyond the said submission. Accordingly, the proposal to acquire the lands shown in the said Notification has been withdrawn deleting the lands from the purview of the Notifications under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act with an endorsement at Annexure-E. However the same does not automatically authorize the petitioners for utilizing the same for residential layout. The KIADB and Urban Development Planning Authority are constituted under different enactments and function within their respective fields. In view of the declaration of the lands in question coming under the industrial area in terms of the Final Master Plan, the appropriate recourse open to the petitioners would be to take recourse to section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It may be true that by virtue of the withdrawal of the acquisition Notification issued by the State Government for industrial area, the land in question originally characterized as agricultural land would revive back to its original nature, but subsequent to issue of the final revised Master Plan by the Planning Authority, the plea of the petitioners to restore the lands in question in the residential zone exercising the powers under the writ jurisdiction cannot be countenanced.
9. Hence the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance before the appropriate competent Authority taking recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. If such representation/request is made by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the competent Authority in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and decision shall be taken in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: