M/S Valmark Developers Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Valmark Developers Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2017

Bench: Ravi Malimath

                        1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           ON THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

  WRIT PETITION NOS.43081 TO 43085 OF 2016(BDA)
                      AND
  WRIT PETITION NOS.43087 TO 43091 OF 2016(BDA)


BETWEEN:

M/S.VALMARK DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO.133/1,
THE RESIDENCY, 10TH FLOOR,
RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI MAHAVEER GULECHA,
S/O TEJRAJGULECHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)


AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
     VIDHANA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

  2. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SECTION,
                              2



     CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
     KUMARA PARK WEST,
     BENGALURU - 560 002.

  3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING(SOUTH)
     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
     HEAD OFFICE, NR SQUARE,
     BENGALURU - 560 002.     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1
SRI M.AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
MS.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

                           *****

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
16.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE R2 AUTHORITIES DIRECTING
THE PETITIONER TO MAINTAIN BUFFER ZONE OF 75
METERS AS PER NGT ORDER IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL    AND   WITHOUT    AUTHORITY   OF    LAW
(ANNEXURE-A) ETC.,

     THESE  WRIT   PETITIONS  COMING   ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

The plea of the petitioners is for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 16.07.2016, vide Annexure- A, issued by the respondent - Bengaluru Development 3 Authority. In terms whereof, the petitioners were asked to modify the original plan, in order to modify the subsequent plan.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there are substantial material to indicate that the endorsement issued is opposed to facts.

3. However, the learned counsel for the respondent - BDA by relying on the statement objections contends that there is no error so far as issuance of Annexure-A is concerned. That construction cannot be permitted in the area ear-marked as a buffer zone.

4. On considering the submissions, I'am of the considered view that it would be just and proper if the petitioners are permitted to make a fresh representation to the second respondent, culling out all the contentions in their support. If such a representation is made, the second 4 respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE JJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court