Karnataka High Court
Sri D R Gopinath vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.34877 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D.R. GOPINATH
S/O LATE D.P. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.442, 10TH CROSS,
2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560085.
2. DR. B.V. SUDHAKAR REDDY
S/O VENUGOPALA REDDY,
AGED 47 YEARS,
R/AT "HARSHITHA APARTMENTS"
PATHANJALI NAGAR,
PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DIST.
3. SRI. E.THIMMA REDDY
S/O LATE EPPETI VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED 64 YEARS,
R/AT PATHANJALI NAGAR,
PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT
THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
REPTD. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
D.R. GOPINATH, THE PETITIONER NO.1
4. SRI. R. MOHAN REDDY
S/O R. PEDDA NANJI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT No.135, "MUNILAKSHMAMA BUILDING",
KASINAGAR, AMRUTHA HALLI,
BENGALURU-560092.
2
5. M.A. SHIVAIAH
S/O ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
LAKSHMINARASIMHA KRUPA,
R/AT SNEHA SOURABHA,
NEAR CHETHANA SCHOOL,
B.H ROAD, TUMKUR.
THE PETITIONER NO.5 IS
REPTD. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
R.MOHAN REDDY, THE PETITIONER NO.4
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.V.MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560020.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU.
4. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING
COMMITTEE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX,
N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU
5. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT DIRECTOR
OF TOWN PLANNING,
BBMP, N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
3
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI. S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE AUTHORITIES/RESPONDENTS TO MAKE PROVISION FOR
CLEAR MOTORABLE ACCESS TO THE ADJOINING LANDS/PLOTS,
WHILE SANCTIONING THE DEVELOPMENT/LAYOUT/BUILDING
PLANS, AND THEREBY PREVENTING THE "LAND-LOCKINGS",
BLOCKING THE ACCESS TO THE ADJOINING LANDS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.07.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The Petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to ensure provision of motorable access to the adjoining lands/plots while sanctioning the building plans, to prevent such adjacent properties becoming land locked. The petitioners have sought for a direction to incorporate in the Revised Master Plan 2015 (for short, 'RMP 2015') and in the proposed revision of the Comprehensive Development Plan (Master Plan) 2031, the extension of the 80 feet wide RCDP road running from Mahadevapura to Whitefield road, which is extended up to the eastern 4 boundary of Sy.No.69/7 of Sadaramangala village, so as to provide access to Sy.Nos.68, 69/1 to 69/7 of Sadaramangala and Sy.Nos.121, 127 and 128 of Hoodi village.
2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land in Sy.No.69/6 of Sadaramangala village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring 29 guntas. They further claimed that to the east of their land, a piece of land in Sy. No.69/7 measuring 29 guntas is situated. The said land in Sy.No.69/7 is abutted on the eastern side by a 80 feet wide road formed by Bangalore Development Authority road. In the Comprehensive Development Plan-2001 A.D. (for short, 'CDP-2001') approved by the State Government in respect of Planning District No.8C on 12.10.1984 and in the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan-2011 A.D. (for short, 'RCDP-2011') approved on 05.01.1995 in respect of Planning District No.8C, comprising the land in Sy.No.69 of Sadaramangala village, a 40 feet wide road was provided on the southern side of Sy.No.69 connecting 5 the land in Sy.No.70 of Sadaramangala village running between the boundaries of Sadaramangala and Hoodi villages. However, in the RMP-2015 in respect of Sadaramangala village, the 40 feet road earlier earmarked in CDP-2001 and RCDP-2011 is now not provisioned. The land bearing Sy.No.69/6 belonging to the petitioners was earlier a part and parcel of a larger extent of land in Sy.No.69/2, which was divided into Sy. Nos.69/3, 69/4, 69/5, 69/6 and 69/7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the deletion of the 40 feet road in the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan-2015 (for short, 'RCDP- 2015') filed a representation before the respondent Nos.2 and 5 to extend the existing 80 feet road from Sy.No.70 of Sadaramangala village stated to be stopped at the eastern boundary of Sy.No.69/7 of Sadaramangala village to run through Sy.Nos.68, 69/1 to 69/7 of Sadaramagala village and Sy.Nos.121, 127 and 128 of Hoodi village in the proposed Comprehensive Development Plan-2031. 6
3. The petitioners contend that this is the modus operandi of certain developers who ensure that the properties lying adjacent to theirs, remain land locked, so that they could increase their bargaining power to purchase. It is claimed that though the petitioners requested the respondents not to sanction any development plans in Sy.No.69/7 without making provision for extending the 80 feet road, the same is not considered. The petitioners therefore have sought for directions as stated supra.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 who is responsible for preparing the Master Plan for the Local Planning Area of Bengaluru submitted that as contended by the petitioners, in the CDP-2001 and RCDP- 2011, a 40 feet road was shown in the land up to the eastern boundary of Sy.No.69/7. However, he conceded that the said road is not found in the RCDP-2015. He also admitted that unless a provision is made for extension of the road, the petitioners cannot put to use their respective 7 property and no development plan can ever be sanctioned to develop their property.
In view of the aforesaid submission, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to forthwith consider effecting appropriate modification in the Revised Master Plan 2015 by exercising power under Section 17 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899. This shall be complied within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. It is needless to mention that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall make adequate provision for continuity of the 80 feet road up to the eastern boundary of Sy.No.69/7 of Sadaramangala village and beyond up to the boundary of the Local Planning Area, in the Revised Master Plan for Bengaluru-2031.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma