Karnataka High Court
Smt T P Nalini vs Mysore Urban Development Authority on 9 July, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:26206
WP No. 25308 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.25308 OF 2023 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT T P NALINI
W/O A G DHARMARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5667,
GENERAL K S THIMMAIAH ROAD,
OPP RAGHULAL HEALTH MART,
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
MYSORE 570017
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO., SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. J. MADHUSUDHAN., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI KUMAR K N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
COURT OF MYSURU 570005
KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSURU 570005
3. ZONAL OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO.6, ZONAL OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:26206
WP No. 25308 of 2023
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
MYSURU 570005
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
MS. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE
THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.MUDATPS/REL.SKETCH.TP.03/ 2021 DTD 04.01.2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F WHILE DECLARING THE SAME TO BE ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-F issued by the 2nd respondent-Town Planning Member of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short "MUDA").
2. The petitioner, who is the owner of 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.18/4 of Hosahundi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, approached the 2nd respondent filing an -3- NC: 2024:KHC:26206 WP No. 25308 of 2023 application seeking approval for a single layout plan. Consequent to the consideration of the application filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued by the 2nd respondent. From the impugned endorsement, it is clear that the petitioner is called upon to relinquish free of cost that much portion of the land as identified in the sketch enclosed along with the endorsement which according to the 2nd respondent is the portion of land required for further expansion of the road which would be expanded to 45 meters.
3. During the course of these proceedings, although learned Senior Counsel sought to place reliance on a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in B.MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN /VS./ STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.14362/2021 dated 12.01.2022, pertaining to the respondent - MUDA, nevertheless the learned counsel for the respondent - MUDA submitted that the said decision has been questioned in an intra court appeal filed at the hands -4- NC: 2024:KHC:26206 WP No. 25308 of 2023 of the respondent - MUDA in W.A.No.583/2022. Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal has been admitted by the Division Bench and matter is being considered for final disposal. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that pending consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court should direct the respondent - MUDA to consider approval of the plan excluding the portion of the land identified in the sketch appended to the endorsement while leaving open the question as to whether the petitioner is required to relinquish that portion of the land free of costs to the MUDA or whether the MUDA will have to pay compensation to the petitioner for utilization of the said portion of the land belonging to the petitioner.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner requires to be accepted. The question as to whether the portion of the land identified for expansion in the Master Plan has to be relinquished by the owner of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:26206 WP No. 25308 of 2023 the land free of cost or whether it requires to be acquired by the MUDA on payment of compensation will have to await the decision of the Division Bench. However, the petitioner should not be kept waiting to development the remaining portion of the land excluding the area identified for expansion of the road. The petitioner is also satisfied that the remaining portion of the land will be permitted to be utilized by the petitioner keeping open the portion of the land identified in the sketch appended to the impugned endorsement. As and when the issue will be decided by this Court, then the petitioner may proceed accordingly.
5. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of, with a specific direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner and give its approval for Single Layout Plan. The 2nd respondent will have to take into consideration the width of the road in terms of the Revised Master Plan and thereafter the area required for further expansion. Accordingly the approval shall be granted by the 2nd -6- NC: 2024:KHC:26206 WP No. 25308 of 2023 respondent with a condition that the area proposed for widening of the road shall be kept open by the petitioner. As and when the issue is decided finally, the 2nd respondent is permitted to proceed to either call upon the petitioner to relinquish the portion of the land free of cost, if it is so decided by the courts. On the other hand, if it is decided that such land need not be relinquished free of cost, then the respondent - MUDA will have to pay compensation for the same if it has to utilize the portion of the land.
6. The approval shall be granted accordingly as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-F is hereby quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY CT: JL