Appeal by Bangalore Development Authority against Single Judge order quashing notification and directing permit for land use without NOC. Court dismissed appeal noting prior judgment not challenged by Authority.
Writ Appeal dismissed and pending interlocutory application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:24759-DB WA No.902 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.902 OF 2021 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by RUPA V
Location: High Court of Karnataka
TOWN PLANING SECTION.
(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND:
…APPELLANT
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. BRIJITA PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R2 SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 47310/2015 DATED 12.11.2020 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.
the communication of the Additional Chief Secretary of
Urban Development Department dated 12.07.2019 and a writ of mandamus has been issued to the Authority to permit respondent No.1 to utilize the schedule property for the purpose specified in the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and Zoning Regulations 2007 without insisting a no objection certificate from Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board or any other authority.
parties at length.
NC: 2023:KHC:24759-DB WA No.902 of 2021
been accepted by the Authority which was a party to the said writ petition and no appeal has been filed by the Authority against the aforesaid judgment dated 06.08.2015. Therefore, this appeal, at the instance of Authority, cannot be entertained. The contention that Section 14A(3) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was deleted w.e.f. 10.09.2015 and therefore, judgment dated 06.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.52905/2013 and other connected petitions (M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Vs. The State of Karnataka) does not apply is concerned, suffice it to say that the same has no bearing on the controversy involved in this appeal as respondent No.1 had submitted an application to the Town Planning Member, Bangalore Development Authority for change of land use from industrial to commercial on 13.02.2014 i.e. prior to repeal of the aforesaid provision. Therefore, the
notification dated 03.03.2014 of the respondent No.1 is
governed by the existing provision.
Judge as well as taking into account the fact that the Authority has not chosen to challenge the order dated 06.08.2015 passed in W.P.No.52905/2013 (M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Vs. The State of Karnataka), we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Consequently, the pending interlocutory
application is also dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Single Judge order in W.P. 47310/2015 quashing notification and mandamus permitting land use should be set aside.
Whether Section 14A(3) of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 deletion affects the controversy.
Whether appeal should be entertained given the Authority had not challenged the prior judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Vs. The State of KarnatakaRelied on¶29
W.P.No.52905/2013 (M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Vs. The State of Karnataka)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bangalore Development Authority
M/s. Mittal Steel Limited
State of Karnataka
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
Alok Aradhe
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
