Allowed

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/4706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner sought a writ of mandamus directing BDA to consider its representations for development plan sanction, which BDA refused citing Section 15(3) approval for a residential layout scheme. The court held BDA cannot refuse sanction absent acquisition notifications under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) BDA Act.

What did the court decide?

BDA directed to consider the petitioner's representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two months.

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.4706 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. CASA GRANDE GARDEN CITY BUILDERS PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: 'SALMA BIZ HOUSE', NO.34/1 3RD FLOOR, T-1 AND T-2 MEANEE AVENUE ROAD OPP. TO LAKESIDE HOSPITAL NEAR ULSOOR LAKE, ULSOOR BENGALURU-560 008,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI BHASKAR L., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶15

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (UDD) VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶18

BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.2.)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05.01.2022 AND 20.12.2022 (ANNEXURES-A AND B RESPECTIVELY) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ISSUE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND MEASURING 07 ACRES 20 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.15 OF SRINIVASAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner claims to be the owner of 7 acres 20 guntas

¶25

of land in Survey No.15 of Srinivasapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. It has submitted a representation to respondent no.1 for sanction of development plan in respect of the property concerned. However, the same is not being considered by respondent

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶28

no.1 on the ground that the State Government has granted approval under Section 15(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('BDA Act' for short) to respondent no.1 to prepare a scheme for developing the residential layout which includes the land of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

The question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether respondent no.1/Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) can refuse sanctioning of a

¶30

plan to develop a property only on the ground that approval by the Government is issued under Section 15(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976?

¶31

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and Others vs. Town Planning Member

¶32

and Another reported in (2006)8 SCC 502 at paragraphs 15 and 18 of the judgment has held as under:

¶33

"15. The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶35

regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play.

¶36

¶37

¶38

It is, thus, now well-settled law that an application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. (See Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2006) 5 SCC 702:(2006) 6 Scale 588])"

¶39

Admittedly, in the instant case, approval under

¶40

Section 15(3) of the BDA Act has been issued on 24.02.2021. In the said approval, the BDA has been permitted to go ahead with the formation of a residential layout in certain areas, which includes the land of the petitioner. However, the BDA, which is the planning authority for the purpose of Town and Country Planning

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶42

Act for the City of Bangalore, has not acted thereafter and has not issued even a preliminary notification expressing

¶43

its intent to acquire the land of the petitioner as per Section 17(1) of the BDA Act.

¶44

Right of a person to utilize the lands as he deems fit in accordance with law is a valuable right. Admittedly, the property of the petitioner falls within the residential zone and it has been converted for use of residential purposes. In the absence of valid acquisition proceedings by way of issuance of a notification under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the BDA Act, the BDA cannot refuse sanctioning the plan in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that approval has been granted as per Section 15(3) of the BDA Act.

¶45

For the aforementioned reason, the writ petition is hereby allowed and respondent no.1/BDA is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:22490 WP No. 4706 of 2023

¶47

¶48

and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

hkh.

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

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 S Rajagopala Reddy Vs Paramahamsa Reddy

Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Mohan Kumar.M Vs Smt. Sharadamma

Mr T Dejappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T a Gurubalaji Vs State of Karnataka