The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging a resolution that deleted a road from the Revised Master Plan. The Court held that the depiction does not create a vested interest where third-party rights exist.
The writ petition was dismissed as no grounds were made out for challenging the resolution correcting the RMP.
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: 2024:KHC-D:2302 WP No. 100723 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100723 OF 2022 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S. BHAIRANNAVAR, (SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S)
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
#370, GURU KRUPA, SHIVALAYA ROAD, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001.
(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 25.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND CONSEQUENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE SAID RESOLUTION WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE LETTER BEARING NO.� �� � � �� � ���� �� ������������� DATED 06.01.2022; II. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND THE PETITIONER DATED 19.01.2022 PRODUCED HEREWITH � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � ����� �� �� � ������� VIDE ANNEXURE-S IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.III. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSTRUCT ROAD UNDER SECTION 58(13) OF THE KARNATKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1976 AS PER THE APPROVE MASTER PLAN.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
having formed a layout, a particular site was purchased by respondent No.4 and it is in that site that the respondent No.4 is putting up construction. This having been brought
to the notice of the Urban Development Authority, realizing the mistake which has crept in into the RMP of the year 2021, a resolution had been passed to delete the road in the RMP. His further submission is that, the ODP of the year 1975 and the CDP of the year 1985 and RMP of 1993, never depicted any such road and the depiction made in the year 2014 in RMP of 2021 is without taking into account the plan sanction dated 21.12.1982 and as such, the said mistake has been corrected by way of the impugned resolution.
created on account of the road, which is depicted in the revised master plan?
to the Revised Master Plan coming into force, more so when the property belonged to private persons, who have formed a layout and sold it to third persons. At the most, the demarcation and depiction of a road in the Revised Master Plan would enable the Urban Development Authority having jurisdiction over the said area, to acquire the land in terms of Section 69 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1966. Without such acquisition, no road can be formed, since neither the Urban Development Authority nor the Corporation is the owner of the said property.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2302 WP No. 100723 of 2022
Sd/JUDGE
YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether mere depiction of a road in the Revised Master Plan creates a vested right or interest in favour of a property owner.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashok S. Bhairannavar (since deceased) and Others
The State of Karnataka
Belgaum Urban Development Authority
The City Corporation of Belagavi
Mr. Chandrakant R. Chopade
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
