IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.50758/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
M/s. Century Bangalore City Centre Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex, Ground Floor, Palace Road, Bangalore – 560 052.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.U.Vivekananda Nayak, S/o Umanath Nayak U., Aged about 45 years.
(By Sri.A.S.Ponnanna, Sr.Counsel for Sri.Chandan K., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, …Petitioner Urban Development Department, 4th Floor, Vikasa Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, NR Square, Hudson Circle, Bangalore – 560 002.
4. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore – 560 020.
5. Her Highness Maharani Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, W/o late H.H.Sri.Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, Major, Mysore Palace, Mysore – 570 001.
6. His Highness Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar, Adopted son of H.H.Sri.Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar, Major, Mysore Palace, Mysore – 570 001.
... Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 and R2; Sri.H.Devendrappa, Advocate for R3; Sri.K.Krishna, Advocate for R4; Sri.C.K.Venkatesh, Advocate for R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue direction prohibiting the R-3 and 4 from issuing the TDR certificates in favour of the R5 and R6 pending adjudication of the objections/representations dated 03.08.2019 filed by the petitioners, copies of which are produced as Annexure – N1 and N2 to the Writ Petition and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be the agreement holder with respect to the property, which earlier belong to his Highness Sri. Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. He further submits that apart from the agreement of sale dated 08.04.2008, Joint Development Agreement was entered into on the same date with respect to 37.5 acres. It is submitted that in light of the differences between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 with respect to the agreement dated 08.04.2008 and Joint Development Agreement, O.S.No.6267/2016 has been filed and is pending before the trial Court. It is stated that as per the order on Interlocutory application in O.S.No.6267/2016, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been restrained from alienating or creating third party interest over the suit schedule properties.
2. It is the contention of Sri. A. S. Ponnanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is a proposal by respondent-BBMP to issue TDR (Transferable Development Rights) in lieu of monetary compensation with respect to the utilization of the property for widening of Sankey/Bellary Road and Jayamahal Road, which belongs to respondent Nos.5 and 6, in which petitioner has an interest. It is further submitted that in the light of the proposal to issue TDRs to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the light of the litigation pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 in which interim order has been passed restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from creating third party interest or alienating the property, while proposal of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is being considered for issuance of Development Right Certificate, the objection of the petitioner as regards his entitlement is also to be considered. It is pointed out that the petitioner has issued legal notice at Annexures-N1 and N2 to the Commissioner-BBMP and Commissioner-BDA regarding their objections for grant of TDRs proposed to be issued to respondent Nos.5 and 6.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the suit that is filed in O.S.No.6267/2016 is essentially one for Permanent Injunction and hence, the question of considering the petitioner’s objection does not arise at this stage. It is further submitted that an appeal has been filed against the order passed on Interlocutory application restraining respondent Nos.5 and 6 from alienating or creating third party interest.
4. Heard both the learned counsel. It is to be noted that as per Rules in force regarding granting of Development Right Certificate i.e., the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Right) Rules, 2016, Rule 4 Sub-rule 17 sub clause (c) provides that where there is a dispute on the title of the land, till the dispute is settled by the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority may reject or cancel the grant of Development Right Certificate.
5. Noticing that the petitioner has lodged his objections before respondent No.3, while making recommendation to respondent No.4 for issuance of Development Right Certificate, Respondent No.3 to consider the objections of the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. In the light of the above, petition is disposed off with directions as stated above. The petitioner was permitted to take out hand summons to respondent No.6. A memo has been filed by the Advocate for the petitioner regarding service of notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 by way of hand summons to the officials of the Bangalore Palace. The same has been filed along with memo dated 25.11.2019 and the same is the part of record. Respondent No.5 is represented and in light of the nature of the order being passed, service of notice on Respondent No.6 is taken to be sufficient and the matter is disposed off.
7. All contentions of the parties are kept open and the respondent-BBMP while making recommendation for grant of Development Right Certificate to respondent No.4 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. While such consideration for issuance of Development Right Certificate, the respondent No.5 is at liberty to put forth his rejoinder to the statement of objections stated to have been filed by the petitioner. Respondent-BBMP to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties before taking any decision. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of the petition and will not have a bearing on the pending proceedings before the civil court.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-