Karnataka High Court
Brig P P Ganapathy (Retd.) vs The Commissioner on 11 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:23903
WP No. 321 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 321 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
BRIG P P GANAPATHY (RETD.)
S/O P S POOVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.103,
REDDYS KEERTHI RESIDENCY
92, KRISHNAPPA LANE
JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560005.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ K. S. & SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed
AND:
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
1. THE COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
KARNATAKA
BBMP HEAD OFFICE PREMISES
NR SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-TOWN PLANNING
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE
BENGALURU-560048.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:23903
WP No. 321 of 2021
3. STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPEALS
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE PREMISES
NR SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002.
4. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560020.
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V. BATHE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R4
SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS IN THE PRESENT MATTER PERTAINING TO FILE
FROM THE R-1 AND 2 AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.2.7.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:23903
WP No. 321 of 2021
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to be given relief in terms of a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shri.Pavanjeet Singh Sandu Vs. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and others, in W.P.No.15298/2020 dated 06.04.2021.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2020 at Annexure-A is issued by the respondent-Assistant Director of Town Planning, Mahadevapuara Sub-Division, BBMP, calling upon the petitioner to leave a setback of 30 meters from the edge of the Haraluru Lake, which is abutting the property in question. Apparently, such endorsement is issued on the ground that the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi had passed an order in the case of Forward Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others on 04.05.2016, directing that all -4- NC: 2023:KHC:23903 WP No. 321 of 2021 concerned authorities shall ensure that there shall be a buffer zone left besides all Rajakaluves and Lakes. Following the said directions, the Revise Master Plan-2015 and the Zonal Regulations were also appropriately amended making provision for the buffer zone to be left by the side of all the Rajakaluves and Lakes.
3. However, this Court in the case of Shri.Pavanjeet Singh Sandu (supra) noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.03.2019 allowed the appeals filed by the State of Karnataka and directions/ condition No.1 issued by the National Green Tribunal in its order dated 04.05.2016 was set aside except the directions issued against respondents No.9 and 10 therein, who were the project proponents. Further, this Court also held that the requirement of leaving a buffer zone of 50 meters, 25 meters and 15 meters is applicable, depending on the size of the drains, as contained in the RMP-2015 and Zonal Regulations, only to drains newly identified while finalizing the RMP-2105 and at any rate, it should not be applicable -5- NC: 2023:KHC:23903 WP No. 321 of 2021 to the drains that were already in existence prior to finalization of RMP-2015. Further, it was held that if layouts are formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015, the requirement of setting apart buffer zone as contemplated in the Zonal Regulations of RMP-2015 is not applicable to such layouts.
4. In the present case, on facts it is found that the 'Reliable Lakedew Residency Layout' was approved by the Bangalore Development Authority in the year 2003 and the layout was formed immediately thereafter. The petitioner herein purchased a site bearing No.231 formed in the said layout, under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.2003. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the provisions made in the RMP-2015 and the Zonal Regulations are not applicable to the site in question and the layout in question. The relief given to the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15298/2020 should also enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:23903 WP No. 321 of 2021
5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2020 at Annexure-A issued by the respondent-Assistant Director of Town Planning, Mahadevapura Sub-Division, BBMP, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-BBMP authorities are directed to process the application filed by the petitioner. However, since the plan submitted by the petitioner Online being rejected, the petitioner is required to submit a fresh proposal for sanction of plan Online. As and when the petitioner files the application, the respondent authorities shall consider the same in the light of the orders passed by this Court and process the application as expeditiously as possible.
Ordered accordingly.
6. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL