Allowed

Sri.St Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023WP/7844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an office order requiring a petitioner to relinquish property free of cost for road widening, relying on precedent under Article 300A. The court directed the BBMP to consider the building plan application within six weeks, noting land acquisition or TDR as the legal route for widening.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 04.03.2023 was quashed; the third respondent was directed to consider the plan application within six weeks without insisting on free relinquishment of property.

Sri.St Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 7844 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ST RAMESH S/O THAMANNAGOWDA AGED 48 YEARS, NO.70, DEVAMACHOHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU-562 130. AADHAR NO.258978197111

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by URBAN DEVELOPPMENT DEPARTMENT JUANITA THEJESWINI AMBEDKAR BHEEDHI, VIKAS SOUDHA Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001 KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶14

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002 REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶18

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 098.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 SRI. B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT D04.03.2023 BEARING NO. SA NI/(NAYO)/RARANAVA/PAR/546/21-22 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY R- 3 AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DTD 31.01.2023 BEARING NO. HA NI NA YO /P.R/1338/2022-23 (ANNX-B) ISSUED BY R-2. AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

The petitioner herein approached the third respondent-Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub-Division, seeking sanction of a building licence and plan in terms of Annexure ‘H’.

¶26

Learned Counsel submits that much prior to the submission of the sanction plan, the petitioner had sought information from the BBMP authorities and the petitioner

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶28

was told that the plan has to be submitted showing 7.50 mtrs. in the front side of the property for expansion of road and plan will not be sanctioned in the said area. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a proposed plan leaving out 7.50 mtrs. in the frontage of the property for the purposes of road widening. Thereafter, in terms of the bye-laws, the plan was submitted for putting up a commercial building. However, before approving the plan the petitioner was issued with the impugned communication dated 04.03.2023 at Annexure ‘A’ calling

¶29

upon the petitioner to relinquish the portion earmarked for road widening, free of cost. Learned Counsel submits that the question as to whether a private property should be relinquished free of cost to the local authorities such as BBMP without payment of compensation was considered by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters dated 17.01.2022. Learned Counsel submits that the coordinate Bench has clearly held that such demand made

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶31

by the local authorities to relinquish a private property

¶32

free of cost for the purposes of formation of a road or widening of road will be clearly contrary to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

¶33

Learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to an office order dated 31.01.2023 at Annexure ‘B’. However, learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP would submit that the Office Order dated 31.01.2023 at Annexure ‘B’ is an internal communication made by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP to all the concerned Officers of the BBMP in the matter of considering a sanctioned plan

¶34

for the purpose of the Floor Area Ratio and making use of the benefit of Transferable Development Rights. At any rate, it is submitted that there is no occasion for the petitioner to question the said internal communication made by the Chief Commissioner to the Officers of the BBMP.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶36

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the third respondent-Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar SubDivision, cannot insist that the petitioner should relinquish a portion of his property free of cost for the purposes of road widening. This issue has been considered by the coordinate Bench in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra) and the Hon’ble Division Bench has also confirmed the said judgment in W.A.No.335/2022 dated 28.07.2022. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is required to be allowed.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned communication dated 04.03.2023 at Annexure ‘A’ is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure ‘H’ and proceed in

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023

¶39

accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of

¶40

a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner free of cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

¶41

At any rate, the plan for sanction and issuance of building license shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

JT/-

Sri.St Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.St Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Naveen Bangalore Indusekharan Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri. J. Shivalinge Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vibha v Kamath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.H.Ramaiah Vs the Commissioner

The Archbishop of Bangalore, Vs Mr Harishchandra Shetty