Karnataka High Court
Sri Chennappa vs Bangalore Development Authority on 9 February, 2015
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S SUJATHA
Writ Appeal No.49/2013 (KLR)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHENNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI CHENNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO.391/44, 19TH MAIN
I BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
K P WEST
BANGALORE-560020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE-560002
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING
DR. B R AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2
5. BANK OFFICERS' CO OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
(A CO-OP SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER THE KCS ACT, 1959)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT GF-006, ACHARYA SANKEERANA
ALCOBOO NAGAR, 9TH MAIN
2ND CROSS, BTM II STAGE
BANGALORE-560076
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D NAGARAJ, AGA. FOR R3 & 4)
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.31183/2010 DATED 9/11/2012.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 30TH JANUARY 2015, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA
J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.31183/10 dated 9.11.2012.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the housing co-operative Society had been allotted 30 acres of land by the BDA in Sy.Nos.12 and 14 of Tavarekere Village under BTM scheme. The society was put in possession of 30 acres of land pursuant to 3 a lease cum sale agreement dated 13.3.1983 executed by the BDA which included land measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.14/13 of Tavarekere Village. The said land was conveyed by the BDA to the society by a registered sale deed dated 28.3.1997. The society developed the land allotted to it in terms of the development plan approved by the BDA and in accordance with the terms and conditions imposed by the BDA the society by a relinquishment deed dated 13.05.2005, handed over possession of the property in Sy.No.14/13 to the BDA to be maintained as park. Before allotting the property in question in favour of the society, the land in Sy.No.14/13 was duly acquired in accordance with law along with other lands mentioned in the notifications and possession was taken by the BDA. Thereafter, ignoring the fact that possession was taken by the BDA pursuant to land acquisition proceedings and possession of the land has been handed over to the society, Government of Karnataka exercising the power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 4 1894 denotified the land in question vide notification dated 7.1.1998. This action of the Government of Karnataka was challenged by the society in W.P.No.1200/98. On dismissal of the writ petition, the same was quashed in W.A.No.409/2000 on 12.06.2003. The said order of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the original owner in SLP (Cvl) NO.18939/2003 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 09.08.2004.
3. The appellant under the premise of a purchaser of the land bearing Sy.No.14/13 measuring 39 guntas of Tavarkere Village acquired under registered sale deed dated 06.11.2003 executed by one Smt Rajamma and ors, Legal heirs of late Sri Gare Munivenkatappa is claiming that he is in possession of the land in question supported by an order for conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural purposes granted under Section 95 of the KLR Act, the 'No objection certificate' given by the BDA for change of katha in his name and the plan 5 sanctioned by the BBMP after changing katha of the land in his name.
4. A challenge was made by the society on the action of State Government, BDA and BBMP acting hand in glove with the appellant to change the land use of the land reserved for the park and sought for quashing the 'No objection certificate' issued by the BDA and the plan sanctioned by the BBMP.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival arguments advanced by the parties has rightly condemned the inaction of the BDA and the BBMP in not maintaining the park for which the land was relinquished by the society and the conduct of the statutory authorities encouraging a private person to have right over the public property instead of safeguarding the interest of the public. Since, the learned counsel for BDA has submitted before the learned Single Judge that at no time 'No objection certificate' was issued by the BDA, the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP having contended 6 that by efflux of time the plan sanctioned has lapsed, directed the authorities to maintain the subject land as park with a direction to the Spl.Deputy Commissioner to cancel the conversion order issued under Section 95 of the KLR Act. Thus, the writ petition was allowed.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before this Court and has contended that he being a genuine purchaser for a valuable consideration of the land in question, his rights cannot be disturbed. He is claiming his right over the property in question on the basis of a notification denotifying the acquired land and sought for allowing the writ appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri R B Sadashivappa for the appellant and the learned AGA. The appellant is claiming his right over the property in question on the basis of a registered sale deed said to have been executed by one Smt Rajamma and others, legal heirs of Sri Gare Munivenkatappa 7 claiming title under original owner. Out of 30 acres of land allotted to the society by the BDA, 2 acres 13 guntas was relinquished by the society to the BDA for the maintenance of the park out of which 39 guntas of land is claimed by the appellant as owner of the property. The appellant has no right on the said property being a subsequent purchaser to the acquisition proceedings. The claim of the appellant placing reliance on the notification denotifing the land in question is not acceptable as the same was quashed by this Court and affirmed by the Apex Court. It was necessary on the part of the statutory authorities and the State Government to cancel the permission granted for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose, issuance of the 'No objection certificate' for conversion of katha and the sanction of building plan as the same were issued in gross violation of principles of law to the appellant who is not a owner of the disputed land. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA and BBMP having submitted before the learned Single Judge that no 8 such 'No objection certificate' for change of katha was issued and the sanctioned plan being lapsed, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the authorities to maintain the land in question as a park with a direction to the special deputy commissioner to take steps for cancellation of the permission order.
8. The authorities being statutory bodies are bound to maintain the land in question for the maintenance of the park as per the layout plan which cannot be deviated to support the third party interest. It is the bounden responsibility of the authorities to preserve a public park in the hands of the general public and prevent private hands from grabbing for private ends. This is a classic case of connivance of the statutory authorities in joining hands with the appellant in grabbing the public property reserved for park. This Court can not put an approval of seal for such an illegal act of the statutory authorities. The appellant has utterly failed to establish his right over the subject land. 9 Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE brn