Karnataka High Court
Dr Krishnaswamy Satya Prasad vs Bangalore Development Authority on 8 July, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.13195/2013 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
DR.KRISHNASWAMY SATYA PRASAD,
S/O.SRI.C.A.KRISHNASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF # 16117,
AURORA CREST,
CREST DRIVE WHITTIER,
CA 90605, USA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI.G.M.VISHWANATH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.K.V.SATISH, ADV.)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE- 560 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
MULTI-STORIED BUILDINGS,
2
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1
SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT THE DESIGNATION OF THE SCH
PROPERTY BEARING NO.28 OLD NO.616 12TH MAIN
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, AS PARK IN RMP 2015
IS DEEMED TO HAVE LAPSED, AND CONSEQUENTLY
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO USE THE SCHEDULE
PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER PURPOSES
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(i) Declare that the designation of the schedule property bearing No.28, (Old No.616) 12th Main, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, as park in RMP 2015 is deemed to have lapsed, and consequently petitioner is entitled to use the schedule property for residential or other purpose in accordance with law.3
(ii) Alternatively, issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to allow or pet change of land use of the property bearing No.28, (Old No.616) 12th Main, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, from park to residential or commercial use; and
(iii) Pass such other writ/s or order/s which are deemed to be fit in the nature and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity".
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of vacant site bearing No.28 (Old No.616), PID-7-37-28 situate at 12th Main, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore. The said property which was initially lying in the residential zone as indicated in the Master Plan was subsequently designated as 'Park' in the Revised Master Plan 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'RMP 2015'). It is no doubt true that the petitioner had earlier made an application seeking change of land use as contemplated under Section 14 (A) of the Karnataka Town and Country 4 Planning Act, 1961. Subsequently, the petitioner taking note of the provisions contained in Section 69 (2) of the said Act has approached this Court seeking for a declaration that in view of period of five years having lapsed from the RMP 2015, the consequence would be that in the absence of acquisition of the property for the said purpose, it would revert back to its earlier purpose.
3. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the designation as 'Park' in the RMP 2015 in respect of the land indicated above has lapsed. It is sought that the petitioner be permitted to use the property for residential purpose without seeking change of land use. The respondents have filed their objection statement. It is not in dispute that the property in question was designated as a 'Park' in RMP 2015 and the period of five years has lapsed and that no proceedings have been initiated for acquisition of the said land. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that once the property has been designated as a 'Park' in 5 the Revised Master Plan, the only mode for changing the land use is as contemplated under Section 14 (A) of the Act and therefore the petitioner in any event would have to seek for change of land use as indicated therein. It is therefore contended that the prayer as made in the instant petition is liable to be rejected.
4. In the light of the rival contentions, Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would point out that in the instant case, the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as though the land belonging to the petitioner had been designated as a 'Park' in the Revised Master Plan, the property has not been acquired. In that light, the learned Senior Counsel would rely on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Amita Nitin Shirgurkar v. The Belgaum Urban Development Authority, by its Commissioner and Another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4990. It is pointed out that this Court while keeping in view the scope of provisions in Section 69 (2) as well as 6 14 (A) of the Act has arrived at the conclusion that if there is no acquisition, it would lapse. Further, it has been held that in such event, the change of land use as contemplated under Section 14 (A) would not arise as the designation as made in the Revised Master Plan in the absence of acquisition would vanish and the earlier status would revive.
5. In that view of the matter, since this Court has already taken a view on this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention putforth on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted. Hence, relying on the said judgment referred to above, the petitioner in the instant case would be entitled to the relief as sought in the petition. Accordingly, it is held that the property bearing No.28 (Old No.616), 12th Main, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore would lose its character as 'Park', since five years have elapsed from the notification of the RMP 2015. In that view, since the land in question was designated as a residential property prior to the 7 same being indicated as 'Park', the petitioner would be entitled to put the property to residential use.
6. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*