Disposed

Sri. Srinivas Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024WP/18564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners whose lands were reserved for Parks and Open Spaces in the Magadi Master Plan sought to use their lands after a prior writ petition declared the reservation lapsed under Section 69 KTCP Act. The Court held they need not apply for change of land use but must obtain all requisite approvals.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners may use the subject property independent of the lapsed Parks and Open Space reservation, subject to requisite approvals and permissions; endorsement requiring change of land use applicatio

Sri. Srinivas Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42441 WP No. 18564 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18564 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562130.

¶7

K V RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O LATE K R VENKATESHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562130.

¶8

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEKDAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42441 WP No. 18564 of 2024

¶14

COMMISSIONER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶15

JOINT DIRCTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY, MAGADI EXTENSION, MAGADI RAMANAGA-562120.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 09.01.2023 /1044 PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioners assert ownership of different lands in Chikkanahalli village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru. The third respondent has notified Master Plan for the Magadi

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42441 WP No. 18564 of 2024

¶24

Planning Area including the petitioners' lands. The petitioners' lands are earmarked for Parks and Open spaces. The petitioners have filed writ petition in W.P. No.57944/2015 being aggrieved by this notification insofar as their lands.

¶25

This Court, upon considering the provisions of Section 69 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [for short, the ' KTCP Act '], has opined that the classification of the petitioners' land for Parks and Open spaces has lapsed. The relevant part of this Court's order reads as under:

¶26

"In the case on hand, since master plan was approved on 01.06.2015, it was incumbent upon the respondents to acquire the said land reserved for parks and open spaces within five years, failing this, the consequences as provided under Section 69(2) is bound to follow. Consequently, the reservation of Survey numbers 1, 2, 29/1, 29/3, 29/5, 31/1, 32/1 and Sy.No.50 of Chikkanahalli for parks and open spaces in the Master plan-2015 has lapsed. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed in part and

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42441 WP No. 18564 of 2024

¶28

the designation of the aforesaid land in so far as it relates to parks and open spaces stand lapsed. However, any area reserved in Chikkanahalli for the purpose of Road in the master plan shall continue and remain unaffected by this order."

¶29

After this order, the petitioners have filed different Representations resulting in the impugned Communication dated 09.01.2023. In this Communication, the third respondent has informed the petitioners that their application for Change in Land use will be considered under the KTCP Act. Sri Saravana S, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh D Naik, the learned counsel for the second and the third respondents, and Smt. Spoorthi V, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶30

It remains beyond dispute that, with this Court's declaration that the classification/reservation has lapsed, the petitioners must have the advantage

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:42441 WP No. 18564 of 2024

¶33

of such declaration and the third respondent cannot insist upon an application for a change in land use only because the subject property was once earmarked for Park and Open Spaces. Consequentially, the petitioners can use the Subject property independent of such earmarking, but they must get all requisite approvals and permissions on due compliance. There cannot be any exception from such compliance.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of observing accordingly.

¶35

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶36

Sri. Srinivas Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Srinivas Murthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. S.S.R. Jayanth Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

The Kasturi Serenity Residents Association (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

Mohamed Mahazar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sparkle One Mall Developers Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Halari Visa Oswal Samaj Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri K S Ravish Vs the Commissioner