Karnataka High Court
Sri C Prakash Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44271
WP No. 4906 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 4906 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI C PRAKASH KUMAR
S/O SRI CHIKKA VEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT GOWRI COLONY,
CHURCH OPPOSITE, URUDU SCHOOL ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P B RAJU.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARY TO HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Digitally signed by
NARAYANAPPA 2. THE COMMISSIONER
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH CHIKKAMAGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHIKKAMAGALURU-577102
3. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
CHIKKAMAGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
4. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
5. SRI K V TIRUPALAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT BHARANI NILAYA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44271
WP No. 4906 of 2021
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SCHOOL ROAD,
ARVIND NAGARA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
6. SMT PADMA REKHA
W/O LATE K V LOKNATH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT BHARANI NILAYA,
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SCHOOL ROAD,
ARVINDA NAGARA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
7. SRI C R ALOKA
S/O LATE K V LOKNATH,
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT BHARANI NILAYA,
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST SCHOOL ROAD,
ARVINDA NAGARA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
8. SMT REHANA PARVEEN
W/O LATE MAHABOOB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.348, 4 D 3RD CROSS,
PENSION MOHALLA,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RAVI SHANKAR.A., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. H.N. SHASHIDHARA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.S. SUHAS., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R8;
R6 & R7 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORIA OR APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER
DECLARING THAT THE PLAN DTD.22.02.2018 BEARING NO.26/2014-
15, ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS BAD IN LAW
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44271
WP No. 4906 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ quashing the order declaring that the plan dated 22.02.2018, bearing No. 26/2014-15, issued by the Respondent No.2 & 3 vide Annexure-A is bad in law;
b. Directing the Respondents No. 2 to 4 to inspect the schedule property and restore the position of the schedule property and complying with Annexure-E sanctioned plan dated 05.10.2015.
c. Be pleased to grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner claims to be owner of land in Sy.No.93/P4 measuring 1 acre 38 guntas situated in Uppallahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkamagalur taluk. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.5 to 8 had earlier on 5.10.2015 obtained a plan sanction in respect of their land in Sy.No.94 which did not cause any grievance or inconvenience to the petitioner, but, however vide the impugned plan dated 22.02.2018 at Annexure-A fresh layout plan -4- NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021 has been sanctioned by respondent No.2 which now encroaches upon the petitioner's aforesaid property.
3. The submission of Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner firstly is that there could not have been second plan sanction in respect of the very same land and secondly, respondent No.2-Authority has not properly verified the plan submitted by respondents No.5 to 8 leading to a situation where on account of the plan sanctioned by respondent No.2, the land of the petitioner is sought to be encroached by respondents No.5 to 8 resulting in multiple civil suits. On these grounds, he submits that the petition is required to be allowed.
4. Sri.H.S.Shashidhara, learned Senior counsel for respondents No.5 to 8 submits that there is no marked difference between the earlier Plan of 2015 and that of the year 2022 inasmuch as the second plan has been prepared by taking into account the road shown in the CDP.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021
5. Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that in view of the dispute which has been raised, respondents No.2 to 4 would carry out necessary survey of the land of respondents No.5 to 7 based on sale deeds and revenue documents as also property of the petitioner and thereafter process the application for plan sanction afresh. His statement is placed on record.
6. Heard Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Naveen Chandrashekar, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri.Ravishankar.A, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri.H.N.Shashidhara, learned Senior counsel for Sri.H.S.Suhas, learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 8. Perused papers.
7. The present situation has arisen on account of respondents No.5 to 8 having submitted two plans for sanction as if both of them are independent plans when the same could not have been done. Once a plan has been sanctioned by Urban Development -6- NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021 Authority or Planning Authority with respect of a particular land, no other plan could have been sanctioned on the very same land without reference to the earlier plan which had been sanctioned and without seeking for modification of the earlier plan.
8. If the same at all had been mentioned by respondents No.5 to 8 that there was an earlier plan sanction, then respondent No.2-Authority would have been put on guard to verify the details and consider as to in what manner the modification is to take place and whether the same is permissible under law or not.
9. Be that as it may, the same also does not absolve the duty on part of respondent No.2-Authority inasmuch as the very same Urban Development Authority (UDA) sanctioned two plans, it was but required for the UDA to examine from its own record if there was an earlier plan sanctioned/granted in respect of the said land either by itself or any of its -7- NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021 predecessors including Town Panchayat or local Planning Authorities. On enquiry as to whether there is an adequate system in place to verify the earlier plan sanctioned, Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the same is done physically by verifying the registers which are maintained.
10. In this day and age, it is for the planning authority to have implemented a proper system to access all the plan sanctions granted in respect of a particular property digitally by accessing the digitized plan sanction and such facilities to be available for the Authorities concerned to search and find out if there is a plan sanction granted in respect of a particular land. Apparently the same is not in place, hence, respondent No.2 in association with the Prl. Secretary, e-governance department is directed to implement a proper system for verification of plan -8- NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021 sanction in respect of a particular land, so that these kinds of situations do not arise in future.
11. Apparently, the above situation having arisen firstly on account of second plan being submitted by respondents No.5 to 8 and secondly, on account of no proper verification having been done by respondents No.2 and 3, a fresh survey would have to be conducted and plan considered, hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed, a certiorari is issued, the plan dated 22.02.2018 issued by respondents No.2 and 3 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
ii. Respondents No.5 to 7 are directed to furnish a fresh plan, if they so deem fit for modification of the earlier plan dated 5.10.2015 which shall be considered by respondent No.2 strictly in accordance with law after verifying the land -9- NC: 2023:KHC:44271 WP No. 4906 of 2021 boundaries, entitlement of respondents No. 5 to 7 with reference to the land boundaries of the petitioner and petitioner's entitlement.
iii. Sri.Shashidhara, learned Senior counsel submits that such an application for modification would be submitted within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If such a plan is submitted, the respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the plan in terms of the above within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of said application.
Sd/-
JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61