The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the refusal to release land reserved for parks and civic amenities. The Court held that the petition was barred by delay of over 15 years and that reserving 15% (when 10% was required) was in the public interest, so no interference was warranted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100394 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally K MSOMASHEKAR signed by K MSOMASHEKARDate:2024.01.05 10:59:40 +0530
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2024:KHC-D:26-DB WA No. 100394 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.6202/2008 (LB-RES) DATED 29.03.2023 AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE RELIEF AS PRAYED IN THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC..
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023 passed in WP No.6202/2008 dismissing the writ petition, wherein the petitioners had questioned the endorsements dated 16.01.2008, 17.03.2008, 23.10.2007 issued by respondents No.2 and 3 bearing No.HU DHA MA PA/50/05/VINYASA/2007 and No.HU DHA MA PRA/YO/VI/200708/3145 at Annexures-G, H, J & K and also sought direction to reconsider their representations.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the writ appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners would submit that the petitioners formed Residential layouts in the year 1991 to 1996 and while approving their residential layouts, 15% of the total area was reserved for park and civic amenities. Learned counsel would submit that in terms of
Circular dated 28.07.1981 at Annexure-S, the authorities were required to verify as to whether layout would provide 10% of total area for park and civic amenities. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the said Circular dated 28.07.1981 requires 15% of total area to be reserved for
park and civic amenities. He would further submit that the earlier Circular dated 19.09.1980 requires reservation of 15% of total area towards park and civic amenities and Circular dated 28.07.1981 requires only 10% to be reserved for parks and playgrounds. Learned counsel placing reliance on Circular dated 28.07.1981 would submit that if the layout reserves 10% of total area for park and civic amenities, it would suffice the purpose. Learned counsel would further submit that since there is no development in the layout, the authorities could consider releasing 5% of total area which has been reserved in excess of 10%. It is submitted that the appellants are entitled for treatment on par with other Societies. Learned counsel would submit that in respect of other Societies, after more than 20 years, the authorities have passed an order releasing the land reserved for parks in excess of 10% of total area. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the layouts were formed more than 30 years back during 1991 to 1996. Admittedly, writ petition is filed in the year 2008 after more than 15 years. Circular dated 28.07.1981 was in force as on the date of formation of layouts by the appellants. The only question is, whether the petitioners were required to reserve 10% or 15% of total area towards park and civic amenities. If the petitioners had reserved 15% of total area towards civic amenities and park, at this length of time i.e. after more than 30 years, it is not open for the appellants/petitioners to seek or say that the reservation of 15% of total area was contrary to Circular dated 28.07.1981. Under Circular dated 28.07.1981, the Government in supersession of earlier Circular dated 19.09.1980, decided to have uniform standard of reservation of 10% of total area for parks, playgrounds of the layout and for civic amenities. If the petitioners had reserved 15% of total area as against 10%, it would be in the interest of public. Reserving any area for public or civic amenity in a layout plan is normally a public
NC: 2024:KHC-D:26-DB WA No. 100394 of 2023
purpose and when it is so reserved, if shall be used by the public in general. By reserving 5% of land more than the prescribed limit, the appellants would be helping in maintaining healthy environmental atmosphere.
5. Moreover, rights over those lands are relinquished by the petitioners as long back in the year 1991 to 1996 itself. Having kept quiet for more than 15 years, it is not open for the petitioners to question the correctness and legality of the endorsements issued by the respondents authorities refusing to revise 15% of total area reserved for park and civic amenities. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed .
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
JTR
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45
3 issues framed by the court
Whether appellants can challenge the validity of 15% reservation for park and civic amenities after a delay of more than 15 years?
Whether the reservation of 15% of total area exceeds the statutory requirement of 10% under the 1981 Circular?
Whether the appellants are entitled to release of the excess land reserved for public amenities?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE MAREWADA AND DHARWAD SHAHARA MANE KATTUVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NY
THE MALHAR HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
THE HINDULIDA JANARA MANE KATTUVA SAHAKARA SANGHA NY.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE HUBLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THE HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
S G PANDIT
K V ARAVIND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
