Karnataka High Court
Mr Arjun U Nambisan vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
W.P.Nos.35804-35805/2013 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Arjun.U.Nambisan,
S/o.Late Mr.Unnikrishnan Nambisan,
Aged about 39 years,
Resident of premises in No.S-2,
Bellista III Main,
Defence Colony, Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 38.
Rep. by his Power of Attorney,
And brother of Mr.Gautham.U.
Nambisan, S/o.Late Unnikrishnan,
Nambisan duly constituted vide
Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2002.
2. Mr.Gautam.U.Nambisan,
S/o.Late Unnikrishnan Nambisan,
Resident of premises in No..S-2,
Bellista III Main,
Defence Colony, Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 38. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri.Shyam Prasad.B.M., Adv.,)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Department. Of Urban &
Development,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi Road,
Bangalore - 01.
2. The Bangalore International
Airport Area Planning Authority.
With its office in No.333/1,
I Floor, V.J.Complex,
Sulibele Road,
Devanahalli Town,
Bangalore Rural Dist.
Bangalore - 562 110.
Rep. by its President. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Kirankumar.T.L., AGA for R1)
******
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to declare that the
petitioners cannot be precluded from further developing the
land in Sy.No.20, Navarathna Agrahara Village, Jala Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk as residential properties in terms of
alienation/conversion allowed under sec.95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act vide Conversion Order dated
4.8.97 because such land is classified as traffic and
transportation/airport zoning under the master plan
2021/Regulations published on 27.1.2009 (Ann-G).
3
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioners that land bearing Sy.No.20 of Navarathna Agrahara Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring 2 acres, was purchased by them in the year 1995. Out of that extent, 1 acre 23 guntas was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 20.9.1995 and another extent of 1 acre 17 guntas was purchased on the same date under a different sale deed. The petitioners thereafter made an application u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 seeking conversion of the said lands for residential purpose. By order dated 4.8.1997 the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, permitted the conversion of agricultural lands for non agricultural purpose viz., for residential usage. It is further averred that the petitioners continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the 4 aforesaid lands. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued Notification dated 12.1.1996 establishing the 2nd respondent as the Local Planning Authority under the provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Thereafter, Out Line Development Land was finalized in respect of the local area including the aforesaid lands in question and subsequently on 27.1.2009 the Master Plan 2021 in respect of the zonal area coming within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent was approved. In that Master Plan the aforesaid lands are classified as Traffic & Transportation/Airport Zone. A copy of the Government Notification dated 27.1.2009 is produced as per Annexure-E to the writ petitions. The publication of this Notification has created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that their lands would not be permitted to be used for residential purpose. It is in these circumstances the petitioners have filed these writ petitions in essence seeking permission to use their lands for residential purpose.
5
2. Respondent No.2 which is the Planning Authority has filed its statement of objections categorically stating that if agricultural lands have been converted for a particular purpose viz., for residential purpose as in the instant case prior to 13.9.2004, then those orders of conversion would be protected and maintained despite the publication of the Master Plan in the year 2009. Therefore, it has virtually conceded that in the instant case despite the aforesaid lands being earmarked for usage as Traffic and Transportation/Airport Zoning under the Master Plan, in view of the order of conversion passed u/s 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for residential purpose, the petitioners could be permitted to use that for the said purpose subject to the provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 under which necessary approval and permission would have to be taken.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA for the respondent No.1 and 6 the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Planning Authority and perused the material on record.
4. Having regard to the statement made in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent and keeping in mind the fact that in the instant case the aforesaid lands were converted prior to the publication of the Master Plan which was published on 27.1.2009, prima facie it appears that the petitioners could be permitted to use the aforesaid lands for residential purpose. However, the petitioners would have to seek necessary permission and approval under the provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 before initiating any step in that regard. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file necessary application under the provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 before the 2nd respondent and obtain permission from that respondent authority before utilizing the land for developing the land for residential purpose. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners 7 make an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the same would be considered in light of the statement made in the statement of objections filed in these writ petitions which are adverted to above and pass the order in accordance with law.
The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Dvr: