Allowed

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/20810/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Owners whose commercial single site layout plan application was rejected on condition they freely relinquish land for road widening challenged the endorsement. The court held such a condition violates Article 300-A, set aside the endorsement and directed reconsideration without it.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 15.12.2023 set aside; respondents to consider petitioners' application without insisting on deed of relinquishment, within one month.

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20810 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAKSHMAMMA

¶9

W/O B K SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129

¶10

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

K BHAGYAMMA W/O KODANDARAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶12

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129

¶13

LAKSHMAN R S/O NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129

¶14

PRAKASH R S/O NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT BUDIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶16

¶17

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001 REP. BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY

¶22

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY OFFICE AT NO 33/1, 1^ST FLOOR, V J COMPLEX, SULIBELE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTUTITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R2 VIDE DTD 15.12.23 BEARING NO. BIAAPA / TP/LAO/ANY/10/23-24 ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement

¶30

dated 15.12.2023 vide Annexure-A rejecting the application for sanction of building plan and also sought for mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners application with regard to approval as prayed for.

¶31

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶32

The petitioners are the owners of the property in Sy.No.159/4, 159/5, 159/6 and 249/1. The lands were converted for commercial use by orders dated 26.05.2023. The petitioners secured No objection letter from Grama Panchayath for the commercial use of the above said lands and the petitioners filed an application on 29.08.2023 seeking approval for a commercial single site layout plan. The respondent No.2 issued an endorsement calling upon the petitioners to execute or relinquish their lands for the

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶34

purpose of road widening and Intermediate ring Road projects as a pre-condition for approving a single site layout plan for commercial use. Hence, the petitioners aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, filed this writ petition.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners shall relinquish their right over the portion of the property to Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority free of cost through deed of relinquishment. He submits that the respondent No.2 has no right to impose such a condition while sanctioning the plan. Further in order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case

¶37

of ARUN KUMAR B.C. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

¶38

REPORTED IN ILR 2022 KAR 1461. He submits that the

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶40

respondent No.2 may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners without insisting for the execution of deed of relinquishment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶42

supports the impugned order and prays to dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

Perused the records and considered the

¶44

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

It is not in dispute that, the petitioners have

¶46

submitted an application seeking approval for commercial single site layout plan. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners should surrender the portion of the property to Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority free of cost through the deed of relinquishment, as the property is earmarked for the purpose of widening of road and the revised Master plan under Section 12(1)(b) of the Karnataka Town and

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶48

Country Planning Act, 1961. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this

¶49

Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. (referred supra), wherein this Court held that requiring the owners to surrender of the property right earmarked for widening of road free of cost for sanctioning of the building plan is violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and further the Co-ordinate bench of this Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN AIR 2011 SC 3430 . The Hon'ble

¶50

Apex Court held that the owner of immovable property cannot be deprived of his property by mere executive order without any specific legal authority or supported by competent legislation. In the absence of specific legal authority or support by the competent legislation, the respondents cannot insist the petitioners to surrender the portion of the land free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment. The condition mentioned in the citizen portal vide Annexure-A1 is contrary to Article 300-A of the

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:34316 WP No. 20810 of 2024

¶53

Constitution of India. I concur with the order passed in the

¶54

case of ARUN KUMAR B.C (referred supra).

¶55

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶58

ii. The endorsement dated 15.12.2023 vide Annexure-A is set aside.

¶59

iii. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioners without insisting the petitioners to surrender the portion of property of the petitioners free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment.

¶60

iv. The respondents are directed to consider the application within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶62

SKS

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma 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 Doddananjappa Vs the Sub Registrar

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri Appanna

Sri Honnegowda Vs the Chief Commissioner

Palegowda G B Vs State of Karnataka

S Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka