M/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport Area on 16 December, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport Area on 16 December, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2011 (2) AIR KAR R 248

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3ANGA:_oR£
DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF OECEMBER 201,9
BEFORE : A

THE HON'Bi_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTAi4isi'AGtt§tii:t.eiii;'  

wan PET;_T_:_:oN No_5.773;-773:4/'200.9"'(V"'L:té¢'-!§E§"_';_  u 

Bggwegn :

1. M/s.Baba Deveiopers Pvt. Ltdj",~...V

Having its registered office  'A
At No.l9~20,  
Hegganahalti Viilage, __  
Kundana Hobli,  ' - '-
Davanaha|iiTaiuE<,   V
Bangaiore Rural' District} ' -
Bangalore I     -.
Rep.by its ~i'~'i"ana~g..i:§g"D_iretigort'  V
P.Sasibhu"s_;Vha:_ri;..V  t  

2. P.Sashib._hushan,  _ "
S/0 Late Chandra.sh'ekha'r Rao
Re:sI'u'ing at P»§QtiN0.19~2O,
H_e§;.g;3__ijiah_a|Ei \/'i'Eia.g_e,«'

 .i<tji-adarja _H0_b|i,

' .»D"a\/a nah am A Tal u k,

 . B.aanegatIote rzmal District,

'Ba'nga|o're.j_ 

 Srrit;.F>iA_nasuya

' .. W/0 Sasibhushan

 _Age.d about 50 years,
 Residing at Plot No.19--2O

Hegganahalii Viilage,
---Kundana Hobli,



-3-

the notification issued by the R2 as per Annexure--M dated
27.1.2009 and Gazette Notification dated 29.1.2009, as per
Anne-xure--N as nuii and void and consequentiy to direct the
respondents to permit the petitioners to use the said'"--!.ands
for residentiai purposes. ~  7

These Writ Petitions having been heard 
for orders on 9*" December 2010, pronounced'the»jsame'on 

16"' December 2010 :   

ORDER

Petitioners have sough.t"'~for aAdeclara.t'i'oAif1""t.h.a--t the." Master Plan, 2021 dated 29..,1."2€009 vide Annexures--'K' and issued by the 2"" responden.t~a;s:-_ it/I"'gdateo' 27.1.2009 and the 9999 "Gnaeette::¢0;.4i9Nejt*i»f;'catie_9ii9"'heated 29.1.2009 vide Annexurve-_' N', asrii;iii!>2'a*n:cl"void in so far as they relate to the desig_nati'enertheiieiids, bearing Survey Nos.62, 65, 6499102/1, 103/1, 49, 104/1, 105/1, 9104/3%,"1io'a,,sA'0,i~i"101/1, 2 3 and 102/2, totally measuring 2 241 a'crevs:A.1v'c3; guntas, situated at Hegganahalli village, '9VvV"",.:iKuridana" Hoblé, Devanahalli Taluk, belonging to the Wptetitioners for agricultural use.

in/' -4-

2. The State Government constituted Bangalore International Airport Area Pianning Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Planning Authori«tyl,'f'for.,_, short) on 12.1.1996 and the Master Plan the Planning Authority was provisionally«approvedv the State Government and the same w:a.s>:publishe.d"on September 2004. The afore'm:'entioned_V_ "'la.'r.1d's;.:'v4VVwere converted for non--agr:ic.ultu'ra'lV_0*:'p_urp.oses'H'"i.e., for residential purposes under__Sectvion:: 9'5.:'of'._'jt.h'*e Karnataka Land Revenue Act4,'«',;l.i§65v:{,he_réxinaftierreferred to as 'the Revenue Actiiffor.short)_j0i'2.on 22.12.2004, 1.2.2005, 23.2.2005 and Objection Certificate was issued Karnatai<.a:vPollution Controi Board. However, the application.,""*fi__l_ed by the petitioners for grant of 7',___approval'for formaftion of residential layout was rejected _j"_'~.._'_pyissuingvvesjdorsements dated 7.10.05 and 20.10.2005. p:et'i«tioners made another application for grant of for formation of residential layout on 9%.

E/,.:»«i,»/' W5"

25.4.2006. The same aiso came to be rejected on 22.6.2006. Such orders of the rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for formation of residential |ayout.._'w;er4e questioned before this Court in No.7487/2006 and connected matters. '_ to be disposed of by observing thus it " Para~4 : The petitioiieis' appi«icatiuo'ns'*fuor' 2' sanction of layout_pEano/-~-in"d.us~tcria| use-..weEre required to be co'i"iséide'reci.,'i;.n""t--h'e_AIiight of the final Master._Pian _to«b_e-n'ot'ifi_ed"'uVn'd.ger the Act byvi"'i"t'ia-exit, Ba::iiigai'ore Iinterinational airport Pia'-nning' Planning Authority for theiiavre'a_in. question constituted under _i;he,Act not on the basis of the . _ V"o'*F5'ro.viisi"o.nai Outliiine Development Pian. Learned Advocate General 2' that the orders impugned require a V reiookv in accordance with the 'Master Plan' 'Tito be notified by the Planning Authority. According to the iearned Advocate Generai, the orders impugned are unsustainabie and 'L j':} iv 052 if granted reasonable time, the authorities would reconsider the petitioners' applications and consider the petitioner's application W.P.No.2881/2006 in accordance master pian to be notified on or befOi'i':e:"

01-2009, and pass orders thereagn. "

Para-6: Recording of"

the learned Advocategiix[.Qenera_|,V._n-ot'i:ii'n'g"

further survives for con.s'iAd.ei"a_tion" in'__th_eise petitions and arejfacAc*ord*_i~nglyg»..lAd'is_posed of. Time for compliatncve months from 30"§'~v3a««n:i'z--ary5i__200:9."~.T".i"--.. 2 *0 0

3.v7--._T|'1e is approved by the 2""

|'€Si3On_dent"'~.designaAt~iVng..."7 the lands in question for "V"a_grie'uiitU._tai..i_purApo'se~s"0n 27.1.2009 as per Annexure-- A was issued on 29"' January 2009 to the»..|§fiaster1;i>'lian making certain clarifications as per 20°'*.__VA»nAnexu'rel3'N' on 29"' Lianuary 2009. As a..aEo'r'ementioned, the petitioners are aggrieved by the if"

action of the respondent in designating the lands in question in the Master Plan for agricultural purposes,--.__'

4. It is contended by Sri M.S.Bhagwa_t,£'_:"'lea'rn:e'di.-.:1_"_ counsel appearing for the petitioners...that the'p*~ro'§.risi:oi1ai "

Master Plan dated 17.9.2004 cannot bee'nfor.ced"in"Vi:;gml;»1._j inasmuch as, it is not a Master..::P~!.an in' the_eyes..;'of~la:w. According to him, only Vt-he Mats*t(}f_:'*pl'an which is': finally approved by the State 'Go_ye'rna:n:en__¢t::l'l:i$'i..én_tit|ed to be enforced in law, seconclfcoinitelntionj'of the, learned counsel is'tha*t.V.;tif:e'V'::§§etit'ion'ers"a'i'e"V:discriminated by the respondents in designating the lands in questioryfor 4""agVriicu'--|tu"raV|""'purposes, inasmuch as, the I-':ad3*oin"i'ng i»--and'is.,are designated for residential purposes. vS't*.Vil'cj';__|V\.'4.vV'S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for the ..il_l,c'_;.,_petitionersu'elaborating the aforementioned contentions s¢5.aitttd that BIAAPA is constituted on 12.1.1996 and therefore, the master Plan should have been /)3 t "go prepared by the Planning Authority i.e., 2"" respondent herein within two years as mandated under Section 9 of Karnataka Town Planning & Country Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Planning Act' that the provisional Master Pian-"was. published after eight years by theWPla.n.ning:v_~Auth'ori*t'y--;.lvV"

that the Master Plan was fina|ly,.:a'pprovedV_ 'HState Government after aboutfour_*°a'nd~:llf_.aVlF..,years°l'rom the date of publication of theAVV_proyisi_onlal--*M'a*s_tve'r Plan, which according to belatevdjflwence illegal; that respondent {certain of the residential layouts though were formed after 4_p_ub|icat_iongA.of tVh'e_,V:vproyisional Master Plan; that the the petitioners were designated for V resid"en'tii'alVpu"r--po=ses and whereas, the lands in question VT=~..__a're des"ig.nsa:_ted for agricultural purposes; that the State .A_G'o_vewrln'ment has not applied its mind while approving Master Plan proposed by BIAAPA. He further

- M9 2 3, _ 9 -

submitted that no objection is also issued by the Airport Authority of India on 5.4.2005.

Per contra, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, |ear'ng*eg:d.._' Advocate General taking me through "

provisions of Planning Act opposed"the'w_rit contending that none of the residential1'i~ayouts.ivv'l formed after publication of the"*»provision~aIAM-asterWP|an are approved as aiieged:_b'y the thatmerely because conversion orde.r.s.:'_a're'v.pass'e'd V'i'niiv~--favour of the petitioners """ "suAbseq'Vu:ei1t'~.tAo- pLi_"t3%i*cVation of provisionai Master Plan 'would; entitle the petitioners to get _approv'alV_:Vfrorn Athe"'"Planning Authority; that the fo:__pern*ii'ssion filed by the petitioners is to:"'«b»eVV,considered by the Planning Authority as 'Viper the Ea._w,-then existing at the time of filing of the that no ma/ice can be attached against the .res°p.o'ndAents in publishing the Master Plan; that certain 'piolrtlions of lands which were already developed prior to ix =4 'rich are ' _ H _ Plan is prepared based on fact situation with application of mind.

7. Before considering the rival contentions'~Vo'f..b_tnve parties, it is beneficial to refer to certain p--rovisAion'si of' the Planning Act and Revenue .wof4.'_Tthe_y A Planning Act reveals that the Authority"

prepare and publish in the pr"es'cribed 'mVa'nari'er'V'*aWMaster A Plan for such area anc:l'~~.,sub_rn"i't'V't:he:"Sa.me to the State Government for provisional.._ai'p_'pfov"a.lV"iaffter carrying out the surve'y"io*fr.:t:.he 'a:i1je'a'two"Vyears from the date of deciaratEo--n'o.f the area. If the Master Plan is notA.prrepaar'ed:V, rptzblishiésd and submitted to the State I-fly.V.Gove'rn'm.ent"'by the""i5lanning Authority within the period of.twoy"yvears,Vf'the State Government may authorise the _Director of -Town Planning to prepare and publish such ""=4'pl:a~n.Pri__n the prescribed manner. Prior to carrying out the survey of the area for preparing the Master Plan under Section 9 ofg~"'--the Planning Act, the Planning Authority shall declaration of its intention to prepare such p,|_a'v:i"l~--,,..VS"r11A_1Q~=,~J'_ing'7 the boundaries of the entire included in the Master Plan.,S.u_ch sent to State Government. has to notify of such declaravtgior. _i3ffi';:lAi.ag'i_C'gazette and in one or more local.V.n'ew3,.V.p--gipjers*suggestions from the pu oi Sectionll «:12 Act deals with the contentsof the Master"-PVAl"an and the contents include ?'for"i'A.;oninQu llll of the land use, such as for resti--.den_tialvv,:":-.._,._'l clornmercial, industrial, agricultural AV"recreat'ion,.._"'educational and etc., a complete street indicating major and minor roads, national hiigh"wia'ys and State highways etc., It shall also include reserved for parks, playgrounds and other /3 _ 13 _ recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings and institutions and the area reserved for such other purposes as may be expedient for nevi!"-»:'c*iv"i'c_' developments and the areas earmarked development and expansion.

Section 13 of the Planning"Act-A.A_lreve'a|.s State Government after maklingisuchh"modificatVi'ovyn's"'as it it deems fit shall return .t'h.e Malster.I'j'PlVan_Atothe Planning Authority, which shall notification the Maste"r"'Pla:r:, within 60 days from theVV7::lalt.eVofVVV If any member of the public _commu"ni_cate's in "writing any comment on the the Planning llll "Authority, the Planning Authority shcallvv.ccoiris:Vii§.e"r fsuich comments and re--submit the plan and the to the State Government. After itit"Silli=eceivi_ng "the plan and the report, the State Government 4'.'_wi|'i'._VVV"g'i've its final approval to the plan with such =.rn'odifications as the Director may advise under sub- :"'5\'\ /' W .

_ (.4- section (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Thus, the final approval of the Master Plan will be accorded under subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Section 14 (1) of the Planning Act clarif'_;sV_,:'tha.t every land use, every change in iand use development in the area covered bytthie pilani''scu.ojecti't0"i'._ 3' Section 14~A, from the date on dle'c.AlAa*rat«i0l,i~.Ali'r. intention to prepare the Maste*r.',:.V'l'-'lan isrpubEVis:hVedMu'n'der 3' Section 10(1) shall coiira,,rm,iito*tr.éeprovislioinsVor the Pianning:iAc't',"thfe_ the report as finally approved zbv the under Section 13(3) of the P,!a.nnin"'_cj' A _ "itisfa|S'o._re|evVa'nt to note the provisions of Section V(thus:"

of.-_uthe'.'}l<,arnaitaka Land Revenue Act, which reads A Section 95 : Uses of agricultural land the procedure for use of if/S)"

-;5_ agricultural land for the other purpose:

(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) If any occupant of land assessed or held"-T-«b.n"'~u for the purpose of agriculture wisheS3V.:'..t"o"~~'.'H:ft4-

divert such land or any part thereof.~~t--o...:a~n:yA--f: . other purpose he shall (not anything contained in any Iavéw f'o._r the:_tir.*ie'~ it being in force) apply 15O'i'..c:[3EnFmi.SSi_§)n._tQ Deputy Commissioner vyihol"'may_, subje.C,3t_tfo the provisions oftt~hi"s_As'ect:{_ioun"'=«a'vn.d~the rules made underthis "'perrn_i..s'sion or grant it ~.h_e:7may think ¥i5rAoyiic!e_dV;'3.4VVn' ihrwvithe Deputy Corvrm*iissionVei'5'fsh'a!lV_:'not..refuse permission for diyersiion ofnsuch_via«n~'d included in the Master pnublnished ____ under the Karnataka Town Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka 1963), if such diversion is in A»..ryaccord_an'ce with the purpose of land use specified in respect of the land in such plan; Xxx xxx xxx"

if LLLA37VVU under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioners cannot claim that the Planning Authiorigty i.e., BIAAPA should permit them to form tlf'..'.3.'44'_'lV.'l:'_\_'/'t'.')'VjLl:t' pursuant to the conversion orders.

Authority has to strictly proceed the Planning Act and the Master Pla'n..v_"The provides for regulation of plan:n'ed_ g_vrow'th.tof land use and development for n9ialz€li'n.g"--ans.;;j;'e$cevcu'tio_n of the town planning schemes_Aof__the-"State Having felt it necessary Saree--..to:i'cr'eate"conditions which are favouv_raE3i~eAVfo'r*p_ljannin:g~~~and replanning of the urban and rural ar"eas" in with a view to provide full __.civic social am--en_i_t_ies for the people in the State, to Vstopl"u--nco_n'trolled_ development of land due to land speculation asr;d.a1'profiteering in land, to preserve and .y%_f.y_.irnproveyexisting recreational facilities and other contributing towards balanced use of land and . 'Tl''to_Md_i5rect the future growth of populated areas in the sifw" 5 approved by the State Government. Thus, it is amply clear that the every development and every change in land use made in between the period betwee.n=..b_thve provisional Master Plan and the final conform not only to the provisior:s"'of it but also to the final Masterg,P|an,f the change in land use made"i"n:favour"*of"the petwitioners it is contrary to the conversion orders cannot be petitioners, inasmuch as, not allow any development' -'Master Plan finally approved.

ii$;dnf1i.ttedlyv,' lllll this matter, the lands in quest'ioni'__afre':deV_sigVn.ated for agricultural use not only in V'.:~,gprovision"a.| iVlast'er Plan, but also in final Master Plan. ,1are._not'.designated for residential use. If it is so, it"V-4'f:.th-ef=pe'titioners prayer for grant of approval of the layout ypllanmcannot and will not be granted since the prayer s}, i"v' runs contrary to the Master Plan. As aforementioned, the petitioners cannot take shelter under the conversion orders for getting approval of the residential the Planning Authority. The conversion subject to final Master Plan. Since"'th*e. M'asterifP.i_aVndoes if not provide for forming any gireside»nti'a_l iay.cb")V_-of' lands which are designated fo'ri:VV:agricultu_raAlfpuirposel, the prayer of the petitionejjj-S.ifor.'g'ra':n*-5.._g.l?vi'plermisvsion to form layout cannot beAigrante.d._.ﬂ--.. A 13f Court concludes that the provisiornal *Masjtelr'*«I??:l'a.n..~~can be enforced in law and any d:.e\.:elop"n:entVa.vi' activity which has taken place after ii.V."prov'i"sVioiial jVl'MyasterV"""Pl«an would be subject to the final Mas-fer elanAs 1'4vl_":.So also, this Court does not find any ground to the contention of the petitioners that they are ,cli.scriminated in the matter of designating their lands for agricultural purposes. The Master Plan could be prepared based on fact situation. Mala fides cann:ot»,be alleged against the respondents. It is Cl§i'l"l'ﬁ.€ld.__l:oily learned Advocate General that certain l«arid:"

over which the development had,' al,_re'a7d§/_ta.l<en'*pl.ace_AA prior to the declaration made'~.._by a,utiio'r;vi.jtl»=,:.,.,,under Section 10(1) of the are ..d'eSi.gn_£§ted for residential purposes. in those areas, the residential come up and are existing be treated as residential ._ is nothing on record to controvert l . sag .

1.5." i<eepii'ig_,Vin rnind the intention with which the 'A'~PlaAn:i'i«i.,n:g --i.sl"*enacted, the Planning Authority prepares V the 'plan' interest of general public. There will have 'to, be line somewhere, to mark the zones such ,'_aslf,ag*ricultural zone, residential zone etc., The l"'~Vl..,,b'ouridaries will be fixed on the basis of actual fact 'ﬁx '\ l'i""

accordance with law applicable on that day on which such permission is to be granted. The applicationsigwere filed by the petitioners after the provisional which had designated the area in iqiileistidh agricultural purpose. In view, permission sought for by the»i'pe.titio'r..ers cozivilld'..;no_tmhiavie been granted and cannot be

18. The judgment l CHAIRMAN, moons V1'KAS_"Pf1§4i.DHﬁ7KARiiN"?:l7$F= mike INDUSTRIAL COKE & ciHE:4f1:t:ALsi L112; ,fANb"'o7'HERs ( (2007) 3 sec

705) iaafelied' learned counsel for the petitioners also is not a'ppl"[cab|e to the facts of this case, I-'i'V'vin'a.s'm"ia.chi;as,"~ the concllusion reached by the Apex Court ini--theh- was after considering the Madhya Pradesah |\_iaga"riTatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

rnatters in question have to be decided keeping in 4'_'rijin.d"'the provisions of Karnataka Town & Country T iilﬁlanriing Act. In the said matter of Madhya Pradesh ..27..

State, the planning statute does not provide for enforcement of draft development plan. Whereas, ingthe matter on hand, as is clear from Section Planning Act of Karnataka, any conversion"

development made after the the provisional Master plan shouId'"co'ntorrnh..t:,o'A'the Master Plan. Which means,l'V""ti?:l_anning'~-AAct*V'sp:ecifically provides enforcement of_.prov.iVsionvai«..Vi§'iaster Plan. In view of the above;thi.s.VACoLl'rt"d5oes not find any ground togrant;that-gVp'ralye.rs oi"'_'th'ev petitioners. Petitions fail and sag;

Judge lH'?''.4.''~?rz§k/I1Ig " '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court