Karnataka High Court
M/S Shreno Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46685
WP No. 28231 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 28231 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
M/S SHRENO LTD
FORMERLY ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES
(A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
NEAR WHITEFIELD RAILWAY STATION,
WHITEFIELD POST, BANGALORE- 560 066.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ALEMBIC ROAD, VADODARA 390 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATION, MR. T. BALARAMAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally signed SRI. RAJU.S, ADVOCATE)
by
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46685
WP No. 28231 of 2024
BENGALURU 560020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
NO. 1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU 560052
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R SQUARE, CORPORATION CIRCLE
BENGALURU 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS
JOINT DIRECTOR URBAN PLANNING (NORTH).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARING THAT REGULATION 7.1(5) AND 7.2 (d)
ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN THE ZONING OF LAND USE AND
REGULATIONS DATED 22.06.2007 AS A PART OF THE
REVISED MASTER PLAN, 2015 AS ULTRA VIRES THE
KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT,
1961 AND CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (PRODUCED AS
ANNX-K); QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.03.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING NO.
BMRDA/ALN/CR/44/2011-12 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-M);
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:46685
WP No. 28231 of 2024
PRJ/15740/23-24 DATED 10.10.2024 PASSED BY THE
R-4 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-P).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of the land approximately measuring 15 acres 8 guntas in Sy. Nos.20, 21 and 22 of Whitefield Main Road, Pattanduru Agrahara Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru [the Subject Property] and the petitioner is aggrieved by the Notification dated 16.03.2023 [Annexure- M] issued by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Region Development Authority [BMRDA] [the third respondent] and the consequential Endorsement dated 10.10.2024 [Annexure-P] issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP] [the fourth respondent].
2. The third respondent, by the impugned Notification has re-aligned the Intermediate Ring Road [IRR] path and consequent to this realignment, this IRR -4- NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 which was not initially scheduled to run through the petitioner's subject property in terms of the Revised Master Plan 2015 [RMP-2015] now runs within the petitioner's subject property. Therefore, the BBMP has issued the impugned Endorsement calling upon the petitioner to relinquish free of cost an area measuring 6,991.94 sq. meters for construction of this IRR informing the petitioner that this area would be in addition to 2684.84 sq. meters already relinquished by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged not just the Notification dated 16.03.2023 and the Endorsement dated 10.10.2024 but has also called in question the Regulations 7.1[5] and 7.2[d] of the Zoning of Land Use and Regulations dated 22.06.2007 [Regulations] which is part of the RMP-2015 notified under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [for short, 'KTCP Act'].
3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has proposed development and the Planning Authority, which had earlier approved the Scheme for development, has issued Work Order dated 03.03.2023 [Annexure-H] approving certain changes in the development as per the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 Plan [Annexure-J]. The petitioner for this revised/modified Work Order has executed Relinquishment and Rectification Deeds relinquishing the areas earmarked for Civic Amenities, Parks and Roads. It is after the Work Order issued by the Bangalore Development Authority [BDA], the third respondent has notified the realignment of the IRR. The realignment is a result of a recommendation and directions by this Court in the Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.36596/2015 and 36597/2015 to consider the recommendations for realignment insofar as one of the properties of a third person. While considering the recommendations, the impugned Notification dated 16.03.2023 is issued realigning the entire IRR resulting in the BBMP calling upon the petitioner to relinquish the additional area free of cost citing the impugned Regulations.
4. Sri Yogesh D Naik, the learned counsel for the BMRDA, places on record a copy of the proceedings of the Meeting held on 09.02.2024 and the decision in this Meeting as could be seen from these proceedings are as follows:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 • "In the proposals seeking permission for developments on lands coming in the alignment of intermediate ring road proposed in the Notification of 2007 and incorporated accordingly in the approved master plans, developments may be permitted considering the adjacent land use zones and in case of mixed land uses, the higher land use adjacent to the road may be considered.
• The alignment of the proposed IRR may be realigned alongwith the proposed ITRR of Anekal Town, proposed STRR alignment between Anekal & Hosakote, ITRR and alongwith proposed STRR alignment between Hosakote & Devanahalli ITRR, finally joining to IVC Road from Devanahalli ITRR. This alignment will avoid road proposal on existing developments within Anekal Town, BBMP limits & BDA LPA. Minor changes in alignment depending upon the site condition may be effected by the implementing agency, in consultation with BMRDA.
• The proposed IRR width may be considered for 60m/90m., depending upon the site condition and feasibility."-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 Sri Yogesh D Naik submits that consequent to the afore decision, the different local Authorities will have to file a fresh recommendation which will be considered by the third respondent and notified, and as such, this Court may consider disposing of the petition directing the petitioner not to use 6,991.94 sq. meters earmarked for any development to avoid precipitation. Sri P N Manmohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard in the light of these submissions.
5. Sri P N Manmohan, firstly, submits that the recent decision which is placed on record indicates that the alignment is rendered tenuous and there is also a decision to permit development, subject to the third respondent revisiting the alignment. The petitioner undertakes not to use 6,991.94 sq. meters, and therefore, there should be no impediment to direct the fourth respondent [BBMP] to consider the petitioner's pending application for building approval without insisting upon releasing this 6,991.84 sq. meters but reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the insistence if there is cause -8- NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 for the same. These submissions are considered for final disposal of the petition.
6. This Court, at the first instance, must observe that the petitioner's immediate cause for the petition is the insistence on releasing 6,991.94 sq. meters of land free of cost for the purpose of construction of IRR by widening an existing road and this insistence is a consequence of the Notification dated 16.03.2023 issued by the third respondent. The petitioner's grievance as against this insistence and the Regulations which provides for this insistence could be examined in all its gamut if the third respondent is certain about the alignment. This Court must, secondly, observe that with the decision in the Meeting held on 09.02.2024, the alignment is rendered uncertain and with uncertainty, this Court must observe that the BBMP cannot insist on relinquishment of the land either with some benefit or compensation or even otherwise. There must be certainty in Plans and the scheme of things if there is to be any insistence on relinquishment. This Court, therefore, is of -9- NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 the view that the insistence with the uncertainty looming large cannot be sustained in law.
7. Further, the decision dated 09.02.2024 is to permit the development along the lands adjacent to the area that would be required to implement the alignment which is now rendered tenuous. This decision stands to reason. The petitioner's grievance as against the impugned Regulations 7.1[5] and 7.2[d] of the Regulations as part of the RMP-2015 and the third respondent's Notification dated 16.03.2023 must be examined in the light of the afore, and this Court is of the considered view that the third respondent has rendered challenge to the Notification dated 16.03.2023 nugatory by introducing an element of uncertainty.
8. The impugned Regulations, and further, the impugned Endorsement dated 10.10.2024 issued by the fourth respondent cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be granted all permissible approvals/permissions by not just the BBMP but also by the second respondent without insisting on the land which would be required as a consequence of alignment in terms of the Notification
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 dated 16.03.2023. If there is any decision later to continue the alignment through the petitioner's subject property, the development by the petitioner will be subject to such decision and without prejudice to the petitioner's rights as against such conclusion. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part observing that in the present circumstances there is no cause for the petitioner either as against the third respondent's Notification dated 16.03.2023 or the impugned Regulations 7.1[5] and 7.2[d] of the Regulations.
[b] The fourth respondent's Endorsement dated 10.10.2024 [Annexure-P] is quashed directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's pending applications for Building Plan/Licence in accordance with law.
[c] It is observed that the issuance of the Building Plan/Building Licence will be subject to the observations as regards the decision to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:46685 WP No. 28231 of 2024 continue with the alignment in terms of the third respondent's Notification dated 16.03.2023 [Annexure-M] in terms of the decision in the Meeting of the third respondent held on 09.02.2024 and without prejudice to the petitioner's rights in the event there is such decision.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-