IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.42799/2018 (LB-RES) Between:
1. Sri. Narayana Reddy S/o. Late Mota Reddy, Aged 70 years.
2. Mohan N.
S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 39 years.
All are resident at Avadadenahalli Village, Byagadadenahalli Post, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Pin – 562 106. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Chandrashekar C., Advocate along with Sri. Malla Reddy, B.V., Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka, Repd. by the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Additional/Deputy Director Urban and Rural, Anekal Planning Authority, No.430, “Anna”, Hennagara Gate, Hosur Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 099.
3. The Member Secretary and Joint Director of Urban and Rural Planning Authority, Anekal Planning Authority, No.430, Anna Complex, Honnavara Gate, Bommasandra Industrial Gate, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 099.
4. The Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA), No.1, Ali Askar Road, Bengaluru – 560 052.
5. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Kandaya Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
6. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Krishna Reddy, Aged 44 years.
7. Smt. Sharadamma, W/o. Late Krishna Reddy, Aged 55 years.
8. Smt. Sarasamma, W/o. M.T. Javaregowda, Major.
9. Smt. Gowramma, W/o. Late Chikkamuniswamy Reddy, Aged 85 years.
10. M. Satish, S/o. Doddamunishami Reddy, Aged 46 years.
11. A.M. Suresh, S/o. Late Chikkamuniswamy Reddy, Aged about 46 years.
Respondent Nos.6 to 11 are Residing at Avadadenahalli Village, Byagadadenahalli Post, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Pin – 562 106.
12. Aravind Gowda, S/o. Late Javaregowda, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.1, 2nd Floor, Sobha Pearl, Commissariat Road, Bengaluru 560 025.
And also at Opp: Agricultural Office, B.H. Road, Holenarasipura, Hassan District. ... Respondents (By Sri. M.A. Subramani, HCGP for R-1 & R-5; Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, Advocate for R2 to R-4; Sri. H. Mujtaba, Advocate for R-12;
R-6, R-7, R-9 to R-11 – Served;
Notice to R-8 is dispensed with) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the modified approval of layout plan granted by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.12 dated 03.10.2016 at Annexure-G insofar as Phase-II in the said layout plan and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners stating to be the owners of the property in Sy.Nos.49/2, 48/1, 47/2, 47/3, 47/4, 47/5 and 47/8 situated at Avadadenahalli Village, Byagadadenahalli Post, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk had filed the present writ petition.
2. The petitioners have stated that respondent No.12 had sought for approval of the layout plan in respect of certain land situated in the same village adjacent to the property of the petitioners.
3. It is stated that pursuant to the approval of the layout plan and after respondent No.12 started to implement formation of layout, the petitioners realised that the access to their properties have been cut off insofar as access to property in Sy.Nos.49/3 and 49/4 with respect to the lands of the petitioners.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings, a ‘compromise petition’ has been filed by both, the petitioners and respondent No.12 and as per the terms of the said petition, respondent No.12 has stated that site No.154 as sanctioned in the Layout Plan would be relinquished in favour of the appropriate Authority and the said site could be made use of as a road.
5. Though the said compromise petition has been styled as a petition under Order XXII Rule 3, the said petition is to be construed as a joint memo insofar as the contesting parties are concerned, as the Planning Authority is not a party to the said compromise.
6. However, what comes out as per the compromise petition dated 09.04.2019 is that site No.154 would be relinquished in favour of the appropriate Authority and the same ought be made use to form 30 feet road so as to provide access to the petitioners property in terms of Section 17(2)(a) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The requirement of relinquishment of property for formation of road ought to be made to the local Authority and in the present case, the site No.154 is to be relinquished in favour of the Byagadadenahalli village panchayat.
7. It has been accepted by the contesting parties that there would be a road of 30 feet formed across the said site, it is also clear that respondent No.12 has undertaken to bear the expenses towards formation of road.
8. The modified plan is required to be submitted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 by respondent No.12 incorporating the road as running across site No.154. If such modified plan is submitted to respondent Nos.3 and 4 Authority without any other modification, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 ought to consider and approve such modification and pass necessary orders within a period not later than eight weeks from the date of release of this order.
9. The direction is being issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4 in light of the fact that layout has already been approved and only the modification would be as regards the site No.154 as a road. It is made clear that the deed of relinquishment would be executed by respondent No.12 as regards site No.154 within a period of six weeks from this day.
10. Accordingly, petitioners state that their grievance stand redressed by the undertaking of respondent No.12 and by appropriate directions issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4.
11. It is made clear that in view of modification being sought for only as regards the portion of site No.154 which is to be used as road, respondent Nos.3 and 4 would permit development by respondent No.12 as per the sanctioned plan approved on 03.10.2016 at Annexure-G. The approval of the modified plan as observed above would be proceeded with parallely.
12. It is further made clear that respondent No.12 and the petitioners would abide by the terms of the ‘compromise petition’ which is treated as a joint memo.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK