Allowed

The State Government Employees Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vijayapura v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024WP/201060/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging condition in layout plan approval treating subject land as Buffer Zone under Ancient Monuments Act. Court quashed condition after survey confirmed land is outside prohibited areas and directed Authority to issue plan without Buffer Zone. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Resolution and condition treating subject land as Buffer Zone quashed; Respondent directed to issue approved layout plan excluding Buffer Zone within four weeks.

The State Government Employees Housing Co… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 201060 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VIJAYAPURA REPSENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. VIVEKANANDA S/O VITTALA BAGALI AGED ABOUT 67 EYARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NO. 300, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LAYOUT-1 ITTANGIHALA ROAD DARGA, VIJAYAPURA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPSENTED BY ITS SECREATRY

¶15

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

¶16

M.S.BUILDING

¶17

BENGLAURU – 560 001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA

¶19

DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIJAYAPURA

¶21

DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

¶22

��

¶23

¶24

ARCHEALOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

¶25

DHARWAD CIRCLE BEHIND KANNADA SAHITHYA BHAVAN, NEAR R.N. SHETTY STADIUM DHARWAD – 580 008.

¶26

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶27

SUPERINTENDING ARCHEALOGIST.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI.G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2 SRI. S.S HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 SRI. SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAYAPUR, DSGI FOR R-4)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYAING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIROARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION DATED: 06.02.2023 IN ITEM NO.5, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶35

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶36

“a) Issue a writ or direction or order writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned proceedings in the Resolution dated: 06.02.2023 in Item No.5, vide Annexure-K.

¶37

b) Issue a writ or direction or order writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.3 to approve the layout plan of Sy No.354/2 measuring 11 acres 15 and Sy No.354/1 measuring 13 acres 7 guntas both

¶38

¶39

��

¶40

situated at Toravi Village, Tq: Vijayapura, by considering the Application, vide Annexure-J and

¶41

c) Pass any such order or orders as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶43

material on record.

¶44

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that after getting the subject lands bearing Sy.Nos.354/1 and 354/2 of Toravi village, Vijayapura district, converted into non-agricultural residential purposes, the petitioner – Society submitted an application for approval of layout plan to the 3^rd respondent – Vijayapura Urban Development Authority and deposited renewal fees in this regard. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the subject lands did not fell either under the prohibited, protected or regulated area as described/classified under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (for short ‘the said Act of 1958’), the 3^rd respondent has granted approval of the layout plan subject to the condition that a portion of the lands be treated as “Buffer Zone” because of the existing Fort

¶45

¶46

��

¶47

Wall, which is said to be situated within the subject lands of the petitioner.

¶48

In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the interim order dated 15.10.2024 to point out that in pursuance of the same, a joint survey was conducted and no portion of the subject lands are found to be situated within the prohibited, protected or regulated area and as such, the question of showing any portion of the subject lands as part of the “Buffer Zone” for the purpose of approval of the layout plan does not arise and the impugned condition No.3 in the proceedings vide Resolution at Annexure-K dated 06.02.2023, directing portion of the subject lands be left for “Buffer Zone” deserves to be quashed.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for 3^rd respondent as well as learned HCGP and learned DSGI submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on

¶51

15.10.2024, this Court passed the following interim order:-

¶52

In this petition, the dispute between the parties is whether a portion of the subject land bearing Survey No.354/2 measuring 11 acres 15 guntas and Survey No.354/1 measuring 13 acres 7 guntas both situated at Torvi

¶53

¶54

��

¶55

Village, Vijayapur Taluk and District falls within the buffer zone area in which no construction is permitted. In this regard, while petitioner contends that no portion of the subject lands falls within buffer zone, the respondents would contend that portion of the said lands falls within the buffer zone and no construction is permitted in the said area. In this regard, the contesting petitioner has filed IA No.3/2024 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner for the purpose of conducting local inspection and to submit a report.

¶56

2. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without prejudice to the rival contentions, I deem it just and proper to allow I.A. No.3/2024 and direct the jurisdictional Additional Director of Land Records (ADLR) to conduct joint survey/inspection in the presence of petitioner and respondents and to submit a report in this regard by the next date of hearing.

¶57

3. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to submit their respective memos of instructions to the Court Commissioner/ADLR for the purpose of carrying out commission work.

¶58

4. The ADLR is directed to conduct joint survey/inspection on 28.10.2024 in the presence of parties and submit a report by the next date of hearing.

¶59

5. All parties are directed to be present at the spot on 28.10.2024 without awaiting further notice from the ADLR.

¶60

6. Re-list the matter on 11.11.2024.

¶61

��

¶62

¶63

As can be seen from the aforesaid interim order, the joint survey was directed to be conducted in order to point out whether any portion of the subject land falls within either the prohibited area, protected area or regulated area under the said Act of 1958. In this context, a perusal of the report dated 25.11.2024 submitted by the ADLR, Vijayapura, will indicate that no portion of the subject land falls within any portion of the aforesaid three areas and consequently, the question of approving the layout plan by treating the portion of the subject land as “Buffer Zone” as indicated in the impugned proceedings, is clearly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fact situation obtaining in the spot and as such, the same deserves to be quashed.

¶64

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶67

(ii) The impugned proceedings in the Resolution dated

¶68

06.02.2023 at Annexure-K directing portion of the subject lands to be treated as “Buffer Zone” for the purpose of approval of the layout plan is hereby quashed; so also condition No.3 in the impugned communication / approval at Annexure-M dated

¶69

7 - ��

¶70

01.10.2022 directing portion of the subject lands to be treated as

¶71

“Buffer Zone” is also hereby quashed.

¶72

(iii) The 3^rd respondent is hereby directed to issue the

¶73

approved layout plan in favour of the petitioner – Society without showing any portion of the subject lands as “Buffer Zone” or prohibited area, protected area or regulated area under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶75

Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

The State Government Employees Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vijayapura v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State Government Employees Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vijayapura v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

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

Shivleela and Ors. Vs the Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Anjali S/O Shankar Rao Kottarki and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Danamma W/O Saibanna Sedamkar Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

The State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs MD Maqsood Ahmed

Tanveer Begum and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

The Executive Engineer and Anr. Vs Late K. Srinivasa S/O K. Thippanna Since Deceased by His Lrs