Karnataka High Court
Mrs Hema Manjunath vs Chitradurga Urban Development ... on 6 December, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44488
WP No. 6100 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS HEMA MANJUNATH
W/O MR B S MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
S R E LAYOUT, TURVANUR ROAD
OPPOSITE WATER TANK
CHITRADURGA -577 501
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DHANUSH M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHITRADURGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AKASHVANI ROAD, C.K PURA
CHITRADURGA-577501
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
by
NARAYANAPPA ...RESPONDENT
LAKSHMAMMA (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE DIRECTION BY THE
RESPONDENT TO RELINQUISH 2018.12 SQUARE METRES OF THE
PETITIONERS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF FORMATION OF THE
RING ROAD CONTAINED IN THE PROVISIONAL APPROVAL FOR
RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING
DEVELOPMENT WORK DTD 13.11.2015 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44488
WP No. 6100 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the direction by the respondent to relinquish 2018.12 square meters of the Petitioner's property for the purposes of formation of the Ring Road contained in the Provisional approval for Residential Layout for the purpose of Implementing Development Work No. CUDA/TPC/187/RLA/2015-16 dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure-A).
b. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the decision of Respondent as per communication No. CUDA/TPC/187/LAY/2015-16/274 dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure-K).
c. Issue any such appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interests of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land covered under Sy.No.67/13, Medehalli, Chitradurga. The petitioner having made an application for sanction of plan, an endorsement came to be issued by respondent - Chitradurga Urban Development Authority (CUDA) calling upon the petitioner to -3- NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 relinquish a portion of the land belonging to the petitioner free of cost for the purposes of formation of 30 metres wide ring road in terms of the Master Plan 2009.
3. The contention of Sri.Arun Kumar K., learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even if there is an area earmarked for formation of widening of a road designated in a Master Plan in terms of clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, 'KTCP Act'), there has to be an acquisition made of the said land in terms of sub-section (1) of section 69 of KTCP Act either by way of agreement or by way of initiation of acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Neither having been done, his submission is that there could not be a demand made by the Urban -4- NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 Development Authority for relinquishment of the said land free of costs.
4. Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent - CUDA submits that the proposed ring road would form an access to the layout proposed to be formed by the petitioner and once such a ring road is formed, the same would be beneficial to the interest of the petitioner and purchasers of the site in the said layout and it is for that reason that the CUDA has sought for relinquishment of the land for ring road free of costs.
5. Heard Sri.Arun Kumar K., learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent - CUDA and perused the papers.
6. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether the Urban Development Authority could seek for relinquishment of any land free of cost while -5- NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 sanctioning a layout plan on the ground that the relinquishment is for the purposes of formation of a road which will enure to the benefit of the owners of the layout?
7. The aspect of whether an authority can seek for relinquishment of land free of costs as regards an area falling outside the layout has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Srivatsa Developers and others vs. The Bangalore Development Authority and others1 and it has been categorically held that it is only as regards the road falling within the layout in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of KTCP Act that such a request for relinquishment of land free of costs would be made and this Court has categorically come to a conclusion that the areas falling outside the layout cannot be sought for relinquishment free of costs and the same would 1 2022:KHC:14555 : WP NO.48258/2018 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 have to be acquired in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of KTCP Act.
8. The further submission made in the present matter that the area once relinquished would be used to form a road which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner who intends to form a layout and to the benefit of the persons who purchase sites in the layout was concerned in my considered opinion the same is of no consequence inasmuch as such a provision is not made either under Section 12 of the KTCP Act nor under Section 69 of the KTCP Act. Thus, the procedure prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of KTCP Act would have to be restored to by the Urban Development Authority even if the proposed road were to enure to the benefit of the persons who intends to form a layout or the persons who purchase sites in the said layout. Hence, I pass the following:
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) A certiorari is issued. The endorsement dated 13.11.2015 at Annexure-A calling upon the petitioner to surrender/relinquish the land in the petitioner's property for the purpose of formation of a ring road situate outside the layout proposed by the petitioner is hereby quashed.
iii) Consequently, the decision of the respondent as per communication dated 06.01.2021 at Annexure-K is also quashed.
iv) A mandamus is issued directing respondent to consider the application for layout plan sanction furnished by the petitioner without seeking for relinquishment of land.
v) It is however made clear that insofar as the land earmarked for formation of the ring road, no layout plan shall be sanctioned but the said property would continue to be under the -8- NC: 2023:KHC:44488 WP No. 6100 of 2021 ownership of the petitioner. In the event of the respondent wishing to acquire the same, they could do so in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of KTCP Act.
vi) Needless to say, that before doing so respondent would have to delineate and mark- out the alignment of the ring road. The plan being required to be considered within a period of 60 days from the date of submission, the alignment would be required to be marked within that time.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109