Karnataka High Court
Shri H M Chandrashekhar vs The Commissioner on 20 July, 2015
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION NOs.17986 & 24600 OF 2015 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. H.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O H.M. VEERAIAH,
NO. 790/A, 8TH CROSS,
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560086
2. SMT. AHALYA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
WIFE OF CHANDRASHEKHAR,
NO. 790/A, 8TH CROSS,
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560086.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. S.N.HATTI, ADV. )
AND
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
SANKY ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-PIN 560020
2. THE TOW PLANNING MEMBER,
BENGALURU BEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SANKY ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST
BENGALURU- 560020
2
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BEHIND TALUK OFFICE,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
MAHAVEER COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 AND 2
SRI.S.LAXMINARAYAN, AGA FOR R3 AND 4 )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2
VIDE ANN-K AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO RESTORE THE LAND
BEARING SY.NO. 141/1 OF BEEMANAKUPE TOTALLY
MEASURING 4 ACRE AS AGRICULTURE LAND IN MASTER PLAN
2015 INSTEAD OF TANK.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The genesis of the Master Plan 2015 is obviously on the recommendations of the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, for short 'BDA', under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, for short 'KTCP Act' while the State Government issued a 3 declaration in the form of a notification under Section 13 of the 'KTCPL Act'.
2. Reckoning the aforesaid procedure then the mistake in the Master Plan is that of the BDA describing the petitioners' land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.141/1 of Bheemanakuppe village, Kenergi Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, as Tank, instead of agricultural land.
3. Petitioners on an earlier occasion filed W.P.Nos.14805/2011 and 26114/2012, whence petitions were clubbed and by order dated 27.7.2012 a learned Single Judge observed thus:
" 5. On hearing the learned advocates, I find that there can be no justification for the delay in considering the petitioners' representation. The materials placed on the record like village map, record of rights and the report sent by the Revenue Inspector are clearly indicative of the character of the land as agricultural. If the showing of the land as tank area is by inadvertence, the same cannot be 4 continued only because the petitioners have not filed the objections to the draft master plan.
6. These petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.7.200& (Annexure-D) in the light of the village map, record of rights and the Revenue Inspector's report, dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure-J) in accordance with law and pass the necessary orders within one month from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order."
4. If regard is had to the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge, then it was for the respondent-BDA to have complied with the said direction by passing orders within one month from the date of issue of certified copy of the said order.
5. The application of the petitioners to correct the said entry and to describe petitioners' land as agricultural land and not a Tank, led to a proceeding 5 whence BDA invoked Section 14-A of the 'KTCP Act' by communication dated 13.2.2015 Annexure-'K' called upon the petitioners to pay Rs.15,000/- towards publication of the notification in the newspaper, calling for objections from interested persons over such corrections. Hence this petition.
6. In the aforesaid light and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is needless to state that it is not for the petitioners to pay for correction of errors committed by the respondent-BDA and the State, in the Master Plan 2015. In that view of the matter, Annexure-K, communication has no legs to stand. No demand can be placed on the petitioner to make the said payment.
7. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The communication, Annexure-K is quashed. A mandamus shall ensue to the respondent-BDA to comply with the 6 order of the learned Single Judge supra, in any event by 30th September, 2015.
8. Respondent-BDA is directed not to make a demand on the petitioner for payment of monies for any purpose in the matter of compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.