Karnataka High Court
Sri. Srinivasa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13031
WP No. 19315 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 19315 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SRINIVASA,
S/O SRI. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.95
KHATA NO.1891/95,
AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE,
AMRUTHANAGAR,
SAHAKARNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
2. SMT. S.M. CHAMUNDESHWARI,
W/O SRI. SUBRAMANIYAM,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43,
Digitally signed 4TH MAIN ROAD,
by
DHARMALINGAM HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT,
Location: HIGH SULTANPALYA, R.T. NAGAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13031
WP No. 19315 of 2021
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTICE DATED.10.8.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-
K. DIRECT THE R-3 NOT TO INDULGE IN THE ACTS SUCH AS
HARASSING THE PETITIONER ON ONE OR OTHER PRETEXT
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 10.08.2021 passed by the respondent-Tahasildar, Yelahanka Taluk cancelling the grant for allotment of a residential site under the -3- NC: 2024:KHC:13031 WP No. 19315 of 2021 provisions of Section 94-C and 94-CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. In the impugned order, the Tahasildar is of the opinion that having granted and conveyed the site in question for residential use, the petitioner has violated one of the conditions imposed in the grant for sale deed. It is stated that a condition was imposed while grant was made in favour of the petitioners that they shall use the site only for the purpose of construction of a residential building and the petitioner is using a portion of the building for the purpose of salon/ hair dressing unit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the site in question which was granted and transferred to the petitioners in the year 2006 is now within the limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have got a plan sanctioned at the hands of the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP, Bengaluru for putting up a residential building. Learned counsel submits that the usage of the site and the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:13031 WP No. 19315 of 2021 type of constructions that can be put up will be now governed under the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 and the Rule and Regulations of Revised Master Plan 2015 formulated under the provisions of the Karnataka Town Country Planning Act. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the zoning of land use and regulations notified along with the revised Master Plan 2015 and submits that provision is made under the zonal regulations that even in a residential (main) zone, the permissible land users include C-II (Commercial-2) category.
4. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be disputed that if commercial-2 is permissible, it would also include the commercial -I and in the table provided in the zonal regulations under the commercial category, at Commercial-I Sl.No.4, hair dressing and beauty parlour are permitted. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that the respondent - Tahsildar could not have passed the impugned order cancelling the grant on -5- NC: 2024:KHC:13031 WP No. 19315 of 2021 the ground that the petitioner has violated the conditions imposed in the grant.
5. Learned counsel would also seek to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Kirloskar Electric Company Limited, Hubballi vs. The State of Karnataka and another, reported in ILR 2020 Karnataka 4127, wherein it was held that though the lands were granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules or the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as and when the said lands are converted to non- agricultural purpose, then the usage of the lands will be governed under the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the building bye-laws of the statute applicable, such as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, depending on the local authority.
6. Learned AGA submits that one of the conditions stipulated in the grant and in the sale deed is that the grantee shall not alienate the property for a period of 15 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:13031 WP No. 19315 of 2021 years. The learned AGA would submit that even if the usage of the land would depend on the statute governing the local authorities such as Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or BBMP Act, 2020, nevertheless, the parent act would be still applicable having regard to various conditions imposed in the grant. Nevertheless, the learned AGA would agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in so far as the usage of the property and the type of construction in the present case would be governed by the provisions of the BBMP Act, 2020 and the zonal regulations of the Bangalore Development Authority.
7. Having regard to the undisputed fact narrated herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the usage of a portion of the residential building at the hands of the petitioners for salon/ hair dressing unit is permissible even according to the bye-laws under which the plan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners have admittedly put up residential building and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:13031 WP No. 19315 of 2021 using a small portion of the same for a salon/hair dressing unit which is permissible in accordance with the zonal regulations governing the land in question. In that view of the matter, this Court accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent- Tahasildar could not have cancelled the grant on the ground that the petitioners have established and are running a salon in the residential building.
8. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-K passed by the respondent-Tahasildar is hereby quashed and set-aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35