IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH. 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.16688-91/2017 (LB-BMP) Between:
M/s. Puravankara Limited A Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 130/1, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru - 566 043.
Represented by its Vice President – Legal Mr. S.John Vijayakumar ... Petitioner (By Sri. Sajan Poovayya, Advocate for Smt. Monica Patil, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Represented by the Chief Secretary 2. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru - 560 027.
Represented by the Commissioner.
3. Joint Director (Town Planning), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Circle, Bengaluru - 560 002.
4. Assistant Director (Town Planning-North), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, N.R. Circle, Bengaluru - 560 002. … Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R1;
Sri. N.R. Jagadeeshwara, Adv., for R2 to R4) These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 25.03.2017 (Annexure-A) issued by R-3 and R-4 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner which is a Company engaged in the business of real estate has challenged the endorsement at Annexure-A dated 25.03.2017 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4, whereby the application of the petitioner for sanction of permission as regards its residential complex has been kept in abeyance calling upon the petitioner to furnish a fresh revised plan in light of the changes in land use as has been brought about in the revised Master Plan-2015.
2. Sri.Sajan Poovayya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms.Monica Patil for the petitioner states that the petitioner has obtained conversion of various extents of land from agricultural to residential purpose by the order dated 29.09.2004 as per the order at Annexure-C passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Certain conditions have been imposed under the said order and the petitioner makes it clear that the rights that flow from the order dated 29.09.2004 would be exercised subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed under the said order.
3. The petitioner states that as per the Master Plan that was in force when conversion order was obtained, the residential activity now sought to be made was permissible.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) states that the revised Master Plan having come into force and the application by the petitioner for sanction of approval of their residential project being submitted subsequent to the coming into force of the revised Master Plan-2015, the petitioner was required to submit its plan in accordance with the restrictions imposed under the Master Plan as regards usage.
5. The petitioner points out that the revised Master Plan-2015 itself seeks to save permissions obtained earlier and that is clear from the provision in the Revised Master Plan-2015 at Regulation-4.12.2(ii)(v), which reads as follows:-
“v. Any land falling within the valley for which permission has been accorded either by the Authority or Government, and then such permission shall be valid irrespective of the land use classification in the RMP 2015.
Fresh permissions for developments shall not be accorded in the valley zone.”
6. Hence, it is noted that the permission obtained from Government including the order of conversion would be saved and valid despite the coming into force of the revised Master Plan-2015.
7. The petitioner also relies on the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2124/2008, wherein, a similar question has been considered and the Court has opined that the right of the petitioners would stand saved by virtue of the Regulation 4.12.2(ii)(v) in the Revised Master Plan-2015.
8. The petitioner contends that the endorsement issued is cryptic and not legally tenable insofar as no decision has been taken on the application of the petitioner for sanction of plan as sought for and the same is kept in abeyance, calling upon the petitioner to produce the revised plan.
9. The BBMP is required to consider the application at Annexure-E dated 06.02.2016 and while doing so, the respondent-BBMP to take note of the permissions obtained including the order of conversion dated 29.09.2004 in an appropriate manner, keeping in mind the provisions of the Revised Master Plan at Regulation 4.12.2(ii)(v) and pass a reasoned order either granting sanction plan or in the event, certain portions of the application of the petitioner are not permissible as per law, the same to be indicated to the petitioner by a reasoned order in an appropriate manner. Such consideration by the BBMP is to be completed within a period of six weeks from date of release of the order.
10. The learned counsel for the BBMP after conclusion of submissions submits that appropriate Authority for sanction of plan is the Bangalore Development Authority. Accordingly, if it is found that the requisite Authority for sanctioning the proposed development is the Bangalore Development Authority or any other Authority, the BBMP without expressing any opinion as regards the permissibility or otherwise of land usage, necessary endorsement is to be issued.
Subject to the above observations, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK