IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.2728/2015 c/w WRIT PETITION Nos.8457-59/2017 (LB-RES) In W.P.No.2728/2015:
BETWEEN:
Sri.S.R.Srirama, S/o Rama Kirshnagouda, Age:38 years, R/o K.Kushalagouda, 2nd Ward, Cheernahalli Road, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District - 577006 .Petitioner (By Sri.Chandrakanth.R.Goulay, Advocate) AND:
1. The Director of Municipal Administration, No.9th & 10th Floor, Vishveshwaraiah Tower, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560001.
2. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District - 577006.
3. Member Secretary, Planning Authority, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District. ...Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 and R2 Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, Advocate for R3) * Sri B.J. Somayaji, Advocate for R2.
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for relevant records and set aside the impugned endorsement dated 31.12.2014 passed by the R-2 vide Annx-L as illegal, improper and void.
In W.P.Nos.8457-59/2017: BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Appaswamy, S/o late Krishna Shetty, Aged about 77 years, Retired Lecturer, R/o 570, 15th Main, E Block, J.P.Nagar, Mysore - 500031.
2. Sri.H.S.Venkatesh Babu, S/o late H.P.Srinivas, Aged about 52 years, R/a 2nd Arkantha Road, K.R.Nagar Town, Krishnaraja Nagar, Mysore District - 571602.
3. Smt.Gowramma, W/o H.G.Raje Gowda, * Corrected vide Court order dated 13.04.2022.
Aged about 50 years, Bomenahalli Village, Kanchinakere Post, Hosa Agrahara Hobli, K.R.Nagar Tq, Mysore District - 571602. .Petitioners (By Sri. Chandrakanth.R.Goulay, Advocate) AND:
1. The State Government, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, M.S.Building, Bengaluru - 560001.
2. The Director of Municipal Administration, No.9th & 10th Floor, Vishveshwaraiah Tower, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru - 560001.
3. The member Secretary, Planning Authority, K.R.Nagara Tq, Mysore District.
4. The Town municipal Council, Rep. by its Chief Officer, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District - 560075. ...Respondents (By Sri.M.A.Subramani, HCGP for R1 and R2 Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, Advocate for R3 Sri.B.J.Somayaji, advocate for R4) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for relevant records and set aside the impugned endorsement dated 31.12.2014 passed by the R-4 vide Annx-N as illegal and void.
These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Writ Petition No. 2728/2015 as well as Writ Petition Nos. 8457-59/2017 are based on the identical factual matrix and the relief sought for in the petitions remains same and are identical. Accordingly, both the petitions are taken up for consideration and are disposed off by this common order.
2. * Petitioner in W.P. No.2728/2015 is stated to be the owner of Site No.121/A, measuring 30'X20' bearing Katha No.**7318 situated at **Cheernahalli Road, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District. The petitioners state that the sites were allotted under the Ashraya Scheme by the Government and have enclosed copy of allotment letters at Annexure- A, said allotment is not in dispute. The petitioners further state that through subsequent sale deeds they * Corrected vide Court order dated 13.04.2022.
** Corrected vide Court order dated 24.08.2022.
have obtained rights and interest with respect to the properties in question.
3. The petitioners submit that despite allotment, the petitioners have not been permitted to construct houses in the said sites which has subsequently been restrained by the respondent authorities. In fact as per the impugned endorsement at Annexure-L dated 31.12.2014, the Municipal Authority had observed that in light of the communication by the Development Authority that the sites are formed in an area reserved for park, necessary action ought to be taken to cancel the allotments after getting opinion by the Ashraya Committee.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the earlier endorsement at Annexure-G whereby the construction license was put on hold till the question of reservation of land for park wherein sites were carved out was to be ascertained. The said endorsement on similar grounds was challenged before this Court and as per the order passed in W.P.No.29975/2014, this Court had directed that proceedings pursuant to Annexure-G ought to be concluded within a reasonable period of time. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, the impugned endorsement has been passed.
5. It is contended that there is no basis for the Development Authority having issued a communication that the area wherein the sites have been formed had been reserved for park.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - Authority submits that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C was passed on the basis of the communication by respondent No.3.
7. Heard both sides.
8. It is noticed that respondent No.3 has addressed its communication to the respondent No.2 admittedly on the basis of the complaint by former member of the Town Municipal Council dated 10.03.2014 wherein he had enclosed a layout plan.
Accordingly, in light of the said complaint, communication dated 15.03.2014 and 19.03.2014 had been issued to the respondent No.3.
9. It is further noticed that as per Annexure-K with respect to a query invoking the Right to Information Act, 2005 as regards to land development of the area in question, there is a reply by the then planning authority that the area in question as on the date allotment was made was not a subject matter of any comprehensive development plan that no records were found as regards to the approval by the planning authority. It is not in dispute that the allotments were made in the year 1992-93. The alleged layout plan that has been relied upon by the complainant is not to be found in the records with the respondent No.3 and its predecessor.
Hence, in light of the same, taking note of the said layout plan given by the private complainant and issuing communication to the respondent No.2 itself is legally untenable. The respondent no.3 ought not have made any communication or issued any direction without itself verifying as to the validity of the alleged layout plan stated to have been given by the complainant.
10. Accordingly, action of the respondent No.3 is without application of mind. In light of the same, the consequent impugned endorsement at Annexure-L is set aside.
11. Needless to state the respondent No.2 taking note of setting aside the endorsement at Annexure-L to dispose off any other representations of the petitioners if pending for consideration.
It is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to act in furtherance of building license issued.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed off subject to the above observations.
Sd/- JUDGE NS