Karnataka High Court
N Ullas vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2014
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
W P No.53185/2013 & WP Nos.56882 - 56887/2013 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. N ULLAS
S/O N S NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/A NO.7211, SUBHASH NAGAR
NELAMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA
HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
2. MS. N USHA
D/O N S NATARAJU
AGED ABOUR 24 YEARS
R/A NO.7211, SUBHASH NAGAR
NELAMANGALA TOWN-562123
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA
HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
3. N SUDARSHAN
S/O LATE N KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A NO.B, L, 176, 208, SFS
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE-560064
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
2
4. H SHANKAR
S/O G P HALESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A NO.3903
OPPOSITE TO CANARA BANK
VIDYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560040
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
5. K B SHIVANANDAPPA
S/O K BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A SASALU VILLAGE
HOLALUKERE TALUK-577526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
6. C MAHADESHSHWARA
S/O P CHIGATERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A NO.1648/27
SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577001
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GPA HOLDER MR N S NATARAJ
7. SRI N S NATARAJ
S/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOTU 55 YEARS
NO.7211, LION BHAVAN ROAD
NEAR TRAVELLERS BUNGALOW
NELAMANGALA TOWN-562123. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri BIPIN HEGDE, ADV.)
3
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
AND MEMBER SECRETARY
NELAMANGALA PLANNING
AUTHORITY
NELAMANGALA-562123. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri H T NARENDRAPRASAD, AGA FOR R1,
Sri S G PANDIT, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.19TH
OCTOBER 2013 PASSED BY THE R2 CANCELLING
THE SANCTION PLAN DTD.26.6.2009 VIDE ANNEX-A,
QUASH ANNEX-P IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
DIRECTION ISSUED IN CLAUSE IV OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 20.3.2012 BY THE R1 AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS PARTICULARLY THE R1 HEREIN TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANN-H
DT.30.9.13 & PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
4
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Nelamangala Planning Authority has been constituted under S.4-C of the Karnataka Town and Country Plan Act, 1961. A residential layout plan was approved by it in favour of the petitioners on 19.02.2009. Thereafter, a revised layout plan submitted was approved. Sites formed were released for registration. Complaints having been received with regard to approval of the modified plan, by issuing a notice and on the basis of the meeting held on 20.03.2012 certain decision having been taken with regard to the layout plan approved in favour of the petitioners, they were directed to comply with the directions. Notice, as at Annexure-R.1 was issued and the petitioners were asked as to submit the modified plan. There being no compliance, the 2nd respondent has cancelled the plan, as at Annexure-A. Assailing the 5 order of cancellation, as at Annexure-A and clause-4 in Annexure-P being direction issued pursuant to the meeting held on 20.03.2012 by the 1st respondent, these writ petitions have been filed.
2. Sri Bipin Hegde, learned advocate for the petitioners firstly contended that in the matter of cancellation of sanctioned plan as per the order, as at Annexure-A, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, no reasons have been assigned for cancellation of the plan when the petitioners have complied with the statutory obligations while obtaining the sanctioned plan. Thirdly, relinquishment dated 26.06.2009 having been executed in respect of the land reserved for the purpose of parks and roads, transferring them in favour of the 2nd respondent, there cannot be a direction to the petitioners to include 2 acres 23 guntas and 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.61/2 and 64/2 respectively, which the 7th petitioner gifted to his wife on 06.12.2008. Fourthly, the impugned action 6 being irrational and in utter violation of principles of natural justice, suffers from serious non application of mind and hence, interference is warranted.
3. Sri. S.G. Pandit, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent on the other hand by taking me through the counter filed on 17.01.2014 submitted that the impugned action being in pursuance of the decision taken by the Government in the meeting held on 20.03.2012, petitioners having been issued with a notice, as at Annexure-R1 and in view of the conversion orders vide Annexures-R2 and R3, no interference with Annexure-A or the impugned condition in Annexure-P is warranted.
4. Perused the writ record.
5. The 2nd respondent approved the residential layout on 19.02.2009. A revised layout plan was approved on 26.06.2009. The petitioners had no notice of the meeting held by the officers of the Government on 7 20.03.2012. Annexure-R1 is a notice issued to the 7th petitioner on 13.02.2013. Petitioners were not even issued with a show cause notice, as to why the revised layout plan dated 26.06.2009 should not be cancelled. Annexure-R.1 is only with regard to the impugned condition in Annexure-P. Without serving a show-cause notice on the petitioners, the revised plan bearing No.LAO.06/2008-09, dated 26.06.2009 has been canceled in terms of the decision in the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 18.09.2013. Thus, there is violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of cancellation of the revised layout plan. Consequently, Annexure-A being arbitrary and vitiated cannot be sustained.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The communication, as at Annexure-A of the 2nd respondent is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the 2nd respondent to make available Annexure-P along with a show-cause to the petitioners and grant reasonable 8 opportunity to submit reply, if any and thereafter, take decision, in accordance with law. The reply, if submitted by the petitioners either to show-cause notices with regard to the intended cancellation of revised plan or to the conditions in Annexure-P, shall be considered by the 2nd respondent - Authority and decision taken.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.