IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3216 OF 2017 (LB-RES-PIL) BETWEEN:
1. SUMA G R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 2. B PUTTAGANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE BASANNA RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 3. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O SANGANNA BASAPPA RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 4. RENUKARADYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O MARULASIDDAIAH RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 5. SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE MALLAPPA RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 6. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O BOMMANNA RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 7. CHOUDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O CHOUDAPPA RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 8. UMESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE K S SIDDALINGAIAH RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 9. SATYA SADANANDA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA, RESIDENT OF VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT, DEVARAYAPATNA TUMKUR 572103 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MANOHAR N, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA , BANGALORE 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR 572103 3. THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TUMKUR 572103 4. THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) TUMKUR 572103 5. THE COMMISSIONER, BACKWARD CLASS SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GANDHINAGAR, TUMKUR 572103 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SHRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SHRI P.S.MANJUNATH ADVOCATE FOR R-4; R-5 IS SERVED) ---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CONTRACT CUM LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 16.3.2011 (ANNEXURE-G) ENTERED INTO BETWEEN TUDA THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 5TH RESPONDENT ST WELFARE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS REGISTERED ON 21.4.2011, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents as also the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is as regards a lease agreement dated 16th March, 2011 entered into by Tumakuru Development Authority with the Commissioner of Backward Classes Social Welfare Department, by which a park site is shown as civic amenity (CA) site and construction of a hostel for boys belonging to the Scheduled Tribe has been permitted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as can be seen from the documents on record, the proposal is to construct a hostel in the place of the site shown as a park. Moreover, he submitted that the residents of the layout will be deprived of the use of the park and CA site. Lastly, he submitted that after an interim order was granted by this Court, there is a proposal to construct the hostel on some other site.
4. We have considered the submissions and perused the objections filed by the State Government.
5. The initial layout plan was sanctioned as per Annexure- R1 annexed to the objections of the State Government. Annexure-R1 shows the park area of 8,750 sft. and CA site measuring 3,400 sft. The said layout is of 23rd March 2007. Later on, on an application made, the layout was modified. A copy of the modified plan is annexed as Annexure-R3. Annexure-R3 shows that the area of the park has been increased to 10,950 sft. and that of the CA site to 4,200 sft. The construction proposed is on the CA site. The site shown as a park is not at all affected and in fact, in the revised layout, the area of the said site has been substantially increased.
6. Therefore, no interference is called for in this public interest litigation. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application does not survive and the same is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*