Karnataka High Court
M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740
WP No. 36116 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 36116 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S BAGMANE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
(REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. D V RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
5TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, BAGMANE TECH PARK 65/2
LAUREL BUILDING, BYRASANDRA, CV RAMANNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 093
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONER
KIRAN
KUMAR R
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADV. FOR
Location:
HIGH SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740
WP No. 36116 of 2024
2. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 067
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
4. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
5. COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT
AND LAND RECORDS
DEPARTTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT
AND LAND RECORDS
K R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. ADV. GENERAL A/W
SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 11.03.2024 BEARING NO PRABHU JHANI. THA(1)
03/2022-23 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 REGIONAL JOINT
DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.4 TO
REVISE THE VILLAGE MAP BY REMOVING THE LAKE BED SIGN IN
THE VILLAGE MAP OF DODDANEKUNDI BANGALORE IN TERMS OF
SECTION 131 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT. (ANNEXURE
A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740
WP No. 36116 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
In the year 2019-20, proceedings were initiated against Sri.G Srinivas, Sri.G Radhakrishna, Sri.Gurappa Reddy and Sri.V. Ananda by the Government under Sections 94 and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It was contended that the aforementioned persons had encroached upon land bearing Sy.No.78/1 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 29.08 guntas and 0.33.08 guntas and Sy.No.78/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 5 guntas and 4 acre 30 guntas of Kere Angala situated at Doddanekkundi village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
2. The aforementioned persons appeared before the Tahsildar and contended that originally the land bearing Sy.No.78 of Doddanekkundi village had been allotted by the Government in favour of one Appa Rao and later on, his sons sold and conveyed the land in favour of Sri.H.P.Gurappa Reddy -4- NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 under a registered sale deed dated 24.03.1960. They also placed reliance on the revenue records to indicate that it was their land and also placed reliance on the master plan of the year 2015, which had been issued by the Bangalore Development Authority, which indicated that the said land was earmarked for Industrial use. The Tahsildar on going through the entire materials, ultimately came to the conclusion that the land in question was a cultivable land belonging to the private persons and was not a kere angala. He accordingly passed an order on 12th of June 2020 dropping the proceedings against the aforementioned persons.
3. Notwithstanding the said proceedings, a second notice came to be issued by the Tahsildar on 18.02.2021 reiterating the contention that the aforementioned lands was a tank. Being aggrieved, the petitioners herein, who had entered into a Joint Development agreement with the aforementioned four persons and approached this Court by way of W.P.No.19745 of 2021. This Court, by an order dated 12th of August, 2022 allowed the writ petition in the following terms: -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 "5. It is by now well settled that there has to be an end to a litigation. The judicial process provided under various statutes is, to ensure that if an issue is raised and decided on merits, the same issue should not be permitted to be re-agitated over and over again. This jurisprudence is based on the principles of Resjudicata. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, when the respondent-Tahsildar has passed an order not very long ago i.e., on 12.06.2020 declaring that the lands in question are private properties and having dropped the proceedings earlier initiated under Sections 94 and 104 of the Act, he could not have issued the impugned notice dated 18.02.2021 invoking the same provisions of law.
6. The State Government is required to make arrangements or put in place a system wherein the revenue authorities should be able to verify from its records as to whether similar proceedings were initiated by the authorities on an earlier occasion. If not, these kind of incidents are bound to repeat.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notice dated 18.02.2021 at Annexure- A, is hereby quashed and set aside. The second respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, shall take note of the fact that this Court has found his action in issuing the notice was totally uncalled for. This should be treated as a warning to the second respondent- Tahsildar and all such Officers are once again reminded that before issuing such notices they are bound to verify the records, find out whether earlier proceedings were initiated and if it is found that such proceedings were initiated and dropped, they shall not proceed once again on the same cause of action.
8. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue to be circulated amongst all the Revenue Officers of the State.
Ordered accordingly."
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024
4. Thus, this Court has recorded a finding that the Tahsildar had recorded a finding that the lands in questions are private lands and had dropped the proceedings and as a consequence, further proceedings or a second proceeding could not be maintained.
5. Pursuant to the order of the Tahsildar dated 12.06.2020, the persons against whom proceedings have been initiated i.e., Sri. G.Srinivas and others approached the ADLR with a request to remove the sign of a lake in the village map. The ADLR submitted a letter dated 17.12.2020 to the Deputy Commissioner / Technical Assistant, in the following terms:
" ಅ ಾರರು ಒದ ರುವ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ , ಸ ೆ - ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಮತು ಭೂ ಾಪಕರು ಮತು ಪ ಾ ೇ ಕರ ವರ!ಯಂ$ೆ ಇ ೇ &ೕ 'ಾ() ಆ'ಾರ ಬಂದು 'ೆ.,.ಟ ಬ.ೆಯು ಾಗ ೇ ಸ. ನಂ. 78ರ 0 ೕಣ 12 ಎಕ.ೆ 28 ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖ.ಾಬು 0.10 ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖು4 12 ಎಕ.ೆ 18 ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖು4 ಜ6ೕ7ಾ ಾಖ ಾ ರುವ8ದ&ಂದ 9ಾಗೂ ಅದರಂ$ೆ ಹಕು; ಾಖ ೆಗಳ 'ಾ ೋ<ತ ಾ =ಾ>ಯ>(ರುವ8ದ&ಂದ ಸ.ನಂ. 78 ?ಡುವA ನಂಬ.ಾ ದುB CಾDಮ ನ'ಾEೆಯ>( ಸ. ನಂ. 78'ೆ; ಅ ಾರರು 'ೋ&ರುವಂ$ೆ 'ೆ.ೆ <9ೆF $ೆCೆದು, CಾDಮ ನ'ಾEೆಯ>( ಕ7ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ ಾಯ Gಯ ಾವA 1966ರ Gಯಮ 73ರ ಅ,ಯ>( HದುBಪ, 9ೊರ,ಸಲು ನಂತರ ಮುದDಣ'ೆ; 'ೇಂದD ಕJೇ&Cೆ ಕಳ ?ಸಲು ಾ(K'ಾ&ಗACೆ ಪDLಾವMೆNಂ!Cೆ OPಾರಸುQ ಾಡುವ ಬCೆR 0Eೇಷ ಪDLಾವ7ೆNಂ!Cೆ ಪTರ ಕಡತವನುF ಲಗHದುB ಮುಂ!ನ ಕDಮದ ಬCೆR ಸ>( ೆ."
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 Thus, a recommendation was made by the Survey Authorities that there was a requirement for removing the sign of lake in the village map.
6. The Deputy Commissioner / Technical Assistant acting upon this letter, addressed a communication dated 29.03.2022 to the Joint Director, in which, he also reiterated the recommendation of ADLR. He followed this up with a communication to the Deputy Commissioner on 13.04.2022 reiterating the requirement of removing the sign of lake in the village map.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of these communications addressed a letter to the Managing Director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra on 17.05.2022, whereby he informed the Udyog Mitra about the requirement of removing the sign of lake from the records. The Joint Director, thereafter addressed a letter dated 20.06.2022 to the Deputy Commissioner / Technical Assistant once again to take action in accordance with Rules for removing the sign of lake in the village map. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner proceed to pass an order on 02.07.2022, in the following terms:
" ಆ ೇಶ VೆಂಗಳWರು ಪTವ $ಾಲೂ(ಕು, ವತೂ ರು 9ೋಬA, ೊಡX7ೆಕು;ಂ! CಾDಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.78 ರ Vಾಬು 0 ೕಣ 12ಎಕ.ೆ-28ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖ.ಾಬು ಎಂಬು ಾ 9ಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ: 78 ರ>( 'ೆ.ೆ <9ೆFNಂ!Cೆ ಾಖ> ರುವ8ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ!ರುತ ೆ. !7ಾಂಕ: 29-07-1944 ರ Yೕ, ನಂ: 11/1943-44 ರ Zೕ.ೆCೆ 'ಪT.ಾ 0 ೕಣ ವನುF Yೕ, ಾ, ಕಂ ಾಯ GಗKಪ,ಸ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. 19607ೇ Lಾ>ನ>( ತ ಾ& ದ 27ೇ &ೕ 'ಾ() ಆ'ಾರಬಂ[ನಂ$ೆ ಮತು 'ೆ.,.\ ಯಂ$ೆ ಸ.ನಂ: 78 ರ 0 ೕಣ 12ಎಕ.ೆ-28ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖ.ಾಬು 0-10ಗುಂ3ೆ, Vಾ] 12ಎಕ.ೆ- 18ಗುಂ3ೆ ಖು4 Vಾ^ನ>(ದುB, ಕಂ ಾಯ 17 ರೂ_ಾ` 06 _ೈLೆ ?ಡುವA ನಂಬ.ಾ ಾಖ>ರುವ8ದ&ಂದ ಪDLಾವ7ೆಯ>( 0ವ& ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳನbಯ CಾDಮ ನ'ಾEೆಯಂ$ೆ ಸ.ನಂ:78 ರ>( ನಮೂ! ರುವ 'ೆ.ೆ <9ೆFಯನುF $ೆCೆದು ನ'ಾEೆ HದುBಪ, ಾಡಲು ಉ ೆ(ೕಖ(1) ರನbಯ ಪDLಾವ7ೆ ಸ>( ರುವ8ದನುF ಕ7ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ Gಯ ಾವAಗಳ 1966 ರ Gಯಮ 36(1)&(2) ರ, ಅನುdೕದ7ೆ Gೕ, ೆ."
8. This order was obviously based on the communication referred to earlier. It is therefore, obvious that the Deputy Commissioner had directed that the sign of lake to be removed from the village map in exercise of the powers under Sections 36(1) and (2) of the Act.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024
9. Parallely, the petitioner had initially approached the Government for granting approval to establish IT/ITES SEZ. Initially, the proposal was to setup the IT/ITES SEZ at plot Nos.39 and 40 of Sy.Nos.79 and 80 and an approval also been accorded in their favour on 23.02.2021.
10. However, the petitioner - company thereafter submitted a proposal, whereby they had requested for expanding their project by 12 acres 28 guntas in Sy.Nos.78/1 and 78/2 of Doddanekkundi village. It is these lands which are the subject matter of the proceedings both under Sections 94 and 104 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by the Tahsildar and the ultimate order referred to by the Deputy Commissioner. The Government which had constituted a Single Window Committee under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002 made a recommendation approving the project in respect of this additional area of 12.70 acres on 26.10.2021. Infact, the noting regarding this recommendation would be relevant and the same are extracted:
"Recommendation of 89th LAC meeting held on 26.10.2021:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 The representative of the company appeared before the Committee through v.c and requested for approval for additional area of 12.70 acres at Sy. no 78/1, 78/2 at Doddanakundi village, Bangalore North taluk, Bangalore Urban district for establishment of IT/ITES Project with an implementation period of 3 years.
The Committee informed the representative of BDA present in the meeting to verify and give opinion on proposed land and based on the opinion decided to place the subject with facts before SLSWCC meeting for discussion.
Accordingly, BDA in its letter ನಂ.Vೆಅ_ಾD/ನNೕಸ/ - 1911/1193/2021-22 Dated 27.10.2021 has given opinion on the land as detailed below:
ಸ'ಾ ರ!ಂದ ಅನುdೕದ7ೆCೊಂ,ರುವ RMP-2015 ರಂ$ೆ VೆಂಗಳWರು ಪTವ $ಾಲೂ(ಕು, 'ೆ.ಆe.ಪ8ರಂ 9ೋಬA, ೊಡX7ೆಕುಂ! CಾDಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.78 ರ ಪTಣ 0 ೕಣ 'ೈCಾ&ಕ ಉ ೆBೕಶ'ೆ;
ವ ೕ ಕ&ಸ ಾ ೆ.
ಕಂ ಾಯ ಾಖ ಾHಗfಾದ ಆe.\. ಯಂ$ೆ ೊಡX7ೆಕುಂ! CಾDಮದ
ಸ ೆ ನಂ.78/1 ODೕ.9ೆg.h.ಗುರಪi.ೆ,X ಮತು 0.ಆನಂದ ರವರ ಾ>ೕಕತb
ನಮೂ ಾ ರುತ ೆ. ೊಡX7ೆಕುಂ! CಾDಮದ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.78/2
ODೕ. .ಾjಾಕೃಷl ಮತು .ODೕG ಾ) ರವರ ಾ>ೕಕತb ನಮೂ ಾ ರುತ ೆ.
ೊಡX7ೆಕುಂ! CಾDಮ ನmೆNಂ!Cೆ ಪDOFತ ಸ ೆ ನಂ.78ನುF ಪರOೕ>ಸ ಾ
'ೆ.ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ ಾ ರುತ ೆ.
Zೕಲ;ಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ ?7ೆF ೆಯ>( CಾDಮ ನmೆಯಂ$ೆ 'ೆ.ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ ಾ ರುವ8ದ&ಂದ ಪDOFತ ಪD ೇಶವ8 nಾಸ ಸbತ ಅಥ ಾ ಸ'ಾ & 'ೆ.ೆpೕ ಎಂಬ ಬCೆR ಾ(K'ಾ&ಗಳ , VೆಂಗಳWರು ನಗರ ೆ( ರವ&ಂದ ಪ&Oೕ> 'ೊಂಡು 'ೆ.ೆ ಇಲ(!ದB ಪ ದ>( ಭೂಉಪNೕಗವನುF ಪ&ಗqಸಬಹು ಾ ೆ ಅr_ಾD` ೆ.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740
WP No. 36116 of 2024
ಅದರಂ$ೆ !7ಾಂಕ 29.10.2021 ರಂದು ಅr_ಾDಯ 'ೋ&
ಾ(K'ಾ&ಗಳ , VೆಂಗಳWರು ನಗರ ೆ( ಇವ&Cೆ ಪತD ಬ.ೆಯ ಾ ದುB,
ಅr_ಾDಯ G&ೕs ೆ.
Z//Vಾಗಮ7ೆ tೆವಲಪ) _ೆu ೇv >.,. ಕಂಪGಯವರು !7ಾಂಕ
29.10.2021 ರಂದು ಸದ& ಜ6ೕನುಗಳ ಪಹqಗಳನುF Gೕ,ದುB, ಇದ&ಂದ ಈ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬರುಗಳ ಜ6ೕನುಗಳ nಾಸ ಾ>ಕತb'ೆ; ಸಂಭಂದಪ\xರುತ ೆ ಎಂದು HAದು ಬಂ!ರುತ ೆ.
ಮುಂದುವ.ೆದಂ$ೆ, ತಹO ಾBe, VೆಂಗಳWರು ಪTವ $ಾಲೂ(ಕು, 'ೆ.ಆe ಪ8ರಂ ರವರ !7ಾಂಕ 12.06.2010 ರ ತಹO ಾBe 'ೋv ಆ ೇಶದ>( ಈ 'ೆಳಕಂಡಂ$ೆ ಆ ೇO ೆ.
The proceedings initiated against the respondents under the provisions of Section 94 and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in respect of the Sy. No. 78/1 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 29.08 guntas and 0.33.08 guntas and Sy. No. 78/2 measuring to an extent of 4 acre 05 guntas and 04 acre 30 guntas of KERE ANGALA in hereby dropped.
In view of the above facts, subject to the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner on the issues mentioned in the letter of BDA, subject may be placed before SLSWCC meeting for discussion and decision.
The proposal was examined & approved in the 127th State Level Single Window Clearance Committee (SLSWCC) Meeting held on 09.11.2021.
Government has examined the recommendations made by the 127th SLSWCC meeting held on 09.11.2021 in all aspects.
Hence the following order.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 GOVERNMENT ORDER No. CI 161 SPI 2021, BENGALURU, DATED 18.07.2022 The Government is pleased to accord approval for the following to M/s. Bagmane Developers Private Limited;
a. Additional area of 12.70 acres at Sy no 78/1, 78/2 at Doddanakundi village, Bangalore North taluk, Bangalore Urban district for establishment of IT/ITES Project, with an additional Investment of Rs. 238.16 Crore.
b. Extension of time by 3 years to implement the project, with a condition that further extension of time will not be considered.
c. Sanction of building plan for the project by KIADB in conjunction and in continuation with building plans already sanctioned for their earlier project in the adjacent land.
This approval is subject to clearance from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, whether the proposed land is Kere Angala or not.
All other terms and conditions indicated in the Government Order No. CI 174 SPI 2018, dated 04.09.2018 remains unaltered."
11. As could be seen from the above, the Committee was informed that there was an issue relating to the tank in Sy.Nos.78/1 and 78/2 and also about all the proceedings which
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 has been initiated in that regard. Infact, the noting above indicates that the Committee had informed the representative of the BDA present in the meeting to verify and give an opinion on the proposed land. It may also be pertinent to state here that the Revised Master plan of the year 2015 did indicate that Sy.No.78 had been earmarked for an Industrial Area and not as a lake. Ultimately, the decision of the Committee was to place the entire facts, subject to the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner on the issues mentioned in the letter of the BDA before the Single Level Single Window Clearance Committee (SLSWCC) for discussion and decision.
12. The said SLSWCC in the meeting held on 09.11.2021 approved the proposal and recommended the same to the Government and the Government on examining the recommendations approved the project in all aspects on 09.11.2021 and proceeded to pass the aforementioned Government Order dated 18.07.2022.
13. It is thus clear that the SLSWCC which comprises of members of 17 departments and which is a statutory body set
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 up through the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002, the question of the nature of Sy.Nos.78/1 and 78/2 was discussed and ultimately, an approval was granted for the project and this was subject to clearance from the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District as to whether the proposed land was kere angala or not.
14. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said Government Order, the Deputy Commissioner issued an official memorandum permitting the said lands to be used for Industrial purposes, as contemplated under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
15. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the copy of the official memorandum and in this, it is clearly stated in reference No.1 that the BDA had granted it's no objection for the conversion. As noticed above, the Government Order dated 18.07.2022 had approved the project subject to the clearance of the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by issuing the official
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 memorandum had therefore signified its clearance to the use of this land.
16. These facts therefore clearly indicate that the project was approved at the highest level in the Government and on the basis of this approval, the Deputy Commissioner had also signified his consent by permitting the petitioner to use the land for agricultural purposes. It must also be kept in mind that the land in question was earmarked for Industrial purpose in the RMP.
17. It must be mentioned here that at an earlier point in time, if a particular area is earmarked as a lake in a village map and the same is not reflected in the subsequent master plans, which are approved under the provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 Act (for short 'KTCP Act'), the significance of the village map would pale into insignificance.
18. It is to be noticed here that the land use is governed by the provisions of the KTCP Act and the Master plan
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 that is published in exercise of the statutory powers therein. Infact, the master plans are issued after they are approved by the Government and the Government is satisfied that the plan which was prepared by body of experts and was for the betterment of the development of the particular planning area. Thus, the earmarking of a particular land in a RMP which was earlier indicated as a lake in the village maps would obviously prevail and not the village map itself. This is because the provisions of the KTCP Act categorically declare that on and from the date of publication of the master plan, the land use would be governed by the land uses indicated in the master plan.
19. The petitioner submits that pursuant to approval of the Government, KADB has also approved the building plans and it has put up number of structures in the land in question. This issue is not disputed by the Government.
20. The petitioner is however aggrieved by an order dated 11.03.2024 by which the Joint Director has expressed his inability to remove the sign of lake in the village map. The Joint
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 Director has fundamentally said that there is no provision which enables him to remove the symbols of the tank or lake from a village map and hence the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained.
21. It cannot be in dispute that a village map is an ancient document which indicated the survey numbers and the natural elements in that particular village. The village map would indicate the pathways, the car paths, the lakes, rocky outgrowth in order to fundamentally indicate the manner in which the lands are to be classified and revenues to be collected. It cannot be in dispute that by passage of time, the characteristics shown in a village map may not remain the same. It is for this reason that the KTCP Act provides for extensive surveys to be conducted and a master plan be prepared for the appropriate use of the said land. Once the revised master plan is published under the provisions of the KTCP Act, it is obvious that it acquires statutory character and would have to supersede a village map. It must be kept in mind that the reason why a village map was prepared in ancient times was for a different context and the use of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 lands as per the village map cannot remain static or forever. The fact that the law recognises that a master plan is necessary to be prepared and published and a master plan when published would obviously prevail over the village map.
22. In that view of the matter, the order of the Joint Director would broadly be of no significance, in the sense the JDLR is right in saying that it does not have jurisdiction to remove a sign in a village map, but at the same time, it will also have to be held that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the mere continuance of the sign of lake in the village map will not render the project, which has been validly approved by the State Government in effective. If the argument of the State is to be accepted that they did not examine the title, then virtually it would amount to nullifying the approvals that it had granted at the highest levels for formation of an IT park and in respect of which the petitioner has invested huge sums. It is therefore necessary to clarify that by virtue of the orders of the Revenue Authorities and more importantly, the RMP in which the land is indicated as being ear marked for Industrial use, the significance of the sign
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15740 WP No. 36116 of 2024 of a lake in the village map would pale into insignificance and would be irrelevant. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9