Karnataka High Court
Shri A Vinay Krishna vs The Mysore Urban Development on 20 February, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.10950 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SHRI A VINAY KRISHNA
S/O SHRI A.KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.7/8, "SANNIDHI"
"RADIANT ENCLAVE"
BANJARAJA LAYOUT, HORAMAVU
BANGALORE-560 043
2. DR.A. MALINI
W/O DR.RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT S-3,
MALAR'S DEFFODIL APARTMENT
3RD CROSS, BHARATIYAR STREET
MUDALIAR PET
PODUCHERRY-605 004
BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SHRI A. KRISHNA BHAT
NO.323, 6TH D CROSS, OMBR LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 043
3. ROYAL ENCLAVE SITE OWNERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION (R)
NO.43/48, 5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN ROAD,
KRISHNADEVARAYA CIRCLE,
VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU-17,
REPRESENTED BY VICE PRESIDENT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVARAM P G, ADVOCATE FOR P1 & P2
SRI VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE FOR P3)
2
AND
1. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
MYSORE-570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
3. M/S.ROYAL ENCLAVE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
NO.895, 14TH CROSS
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SHRI V. BHASKAR REDDY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SMT KAVITHA H C, HCGP FOR R2
SRI NITHIN R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO R-1 TO START AND COMPLETE
THE DEVELOPMENT WORK BY PROVIDING ALL AMENITIES
TO THE LAYOUT CALLED "ROYAL ENCLAVE" SITUATED IN
MARATIKYATANAHALLI OF JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE
TALUK AS APPROVED BY R-1 AT ANNEX-E WITHIN A PERIOD
AS STIPULATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for hearing on interlocutory application, with the consent of the learned Counsels on both the sides the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent-Developer got a plan sanctioned from the first respondent-Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) for the purpose of developing a residential layout comprising of about 626 sites in an area measuring 38 acres and 13 guntas in various survey numbers, situated in Maratikyatanahalli of Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.
3. The undisputed facts are that the layout was sanctioned by MUDA on 11.02.2009 under Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1987' for the sake of brevity) subject to the provisions of the 4 Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the Zoning Regulations. The approval of the authority was communicated to the third respondent on 28.07.2009, imposing several conditions to be complied with. The third respondent was required to complete the formation of layout within a period of five years from the date of issuance of the plan. Consequently, the third respondent executed a Deed of Relinquishment with respect to the roads, parks and civic amenities, as required under law on 22.07.2009. 60% of the proposed sites were released in favour of the third respondent by a release order dated 27.10.2009. 60% of the proposed sites is about 376 sites. It is also not in dispute that 15% of sites were subsequently released by the first respondent-authority by order dated 02.11.2012, thereby a total of 468 sites were released and what remains is about 158 sites.
4. Subsequently, petitioner No.3 and the members of the third petitioner-Association have 5 purchased sites from the third respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent has not completed the layout as per the conditions imposed by the first respondent authority while sanctioning the plan. In this regard, it appears that the petitioners have requested the third respondent to complete the project and enable the owners of the sites to make use of their properties. However, since the third respondent did not respond favourably, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 approached first respondent-MUDA with a request to direct the third respondent to complete the project as per the conditions imposed in the sanction plan. The first respondent-MUDA has issued notices to the third respondent in this regard. Nevertheless when the third respondent did not complete the project, petitioners No.1 and 2 approached the Upa Lokayukta with a complaint that the first respondent- Authorities are hand in glove with the third respondent and the interest of the site owners are not protected even in terms of the conditions imposed by 6 the authority in the sanction plan and as per Section 34 of the Act, 1987. In one of the visits of the Upa Lokayukta to Mysore City, the petitioners seem to have approached the Upa Lokayukta once again and the authorities of MUDA were directed to initiate action immediately or be prepared for serious action. Consequently, the authorities of MUDA have once again issued notices to the third respondent bringing to its notice the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and apprising the third respondent that if the Project is not completed in terms of the sanction plan, the first respondent is well within its powers to take over the project and complete the project as provided under Section 34 of the Act, 1987.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that inspite of several notices being issued to the third respondent, when there was no action on the part of the third respondent to comply with the notices issued by the first respondent-authorities, the petitioners were constrained to file this writ petition 7 with a prayer to direct the first respondent to start and complete the development work by providing all amenities to the layout called "Royal Enclave"
situated in Maratikyatanahalli, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk, as approved by the first respondent as per Annexure 'E'.
6. During the course of these proceedings, statement of objections have been filed by respondents No.1 and 3. The third respondent has also filed I.A.No.1/2019 along with certain statements which may be relevant for consideration of this Court. Along with the application the third respondent has stated that he did not have resources for completing the developmental works. However, it is stated that if the project is completed, there remains about 40,000 sq. ft. of developed, saleable area. In this regard, the third respondent seems to have negotiated with one Mr.Suresh to undertake the development works and the said person has agreed to complete the development but on certain conditions. 8 The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent is even now ready and willing to complete the project. However, the third respondent has made a proposal in the form of a 'Schedule' that is annexed to I.A.No.1/2019. It is proposed by the third respondent that the remaining developmental work will be completed in three phases. It is stated as per the Schedule, that all the civic works such as underground drainage, rain water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipe lines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 shall be completed within a period of five months. At the end of the completion of phase I, it is requested that 12,000 sq. ft. of the developed sital area may be released by the first respondent authority in order to enable the third respondent to sell the same and mobilize the resources for the second phase development. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that if this arrangement is facilitated by this Court, the third respondent will be 9 able to complete development works of the entire project in a phased manner. As per the schedule, after completion of the second phase work, another 12000 sq. ft. of developed sital area is requested to be released. Similarly after completion of the entire developmental work i.e., third phase, the balance of 14400 sq. ft. may be released by the authorities.
7. After hearing the learned Counsels and perusing the petition papers including the statement of objections filed by the respondents as well as I.A.No.1/2019 filed by the third respondent, this Court finds that the proposal given by the third respondent, as per the schedule given along with I.A.No.1/2019 which was dealt with hereinabove, it would protect the interest of the petitioners as well as the third respondent.
8. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in the following terms:
1. The third respondent shall commence all civic works such as underground 10 drainage, rain water drains, culverts, formation of roads, demarcation of sites, numbering sites, laying of water pipe lines in Sy.Nos.77/1, 77/4 and 77/5 and complete the same within a period of five months as undertaken in the schedule to I.A.No.1/2019.
2. The third respondent shall inform the first respondent authorities about completion of the first phase of the works immediately at the end of five months or even prior to that if the first phase is completed as and when the request is made by the third respondent, the authorities of MUDA shall undertake inspection of the works and make sure that the works as stated in the schedule with respect to first phase have been completed and thereafter on being satisfied, release 12000 sq. ft. of developed sital area to the third respondent-Firm.
3. Similarly on completion of the second phase work, the third respondent shall intimate the first respondent authorities and the authorities shall follow the same 11 procedure as was directed in the case of the first phase.
4. However, with regard to the third phase i.e., the final phase, the first respondent-
authorities have to make sure that not only the civic works with respect to Sy.Nos.75 and 45/1 as stated in the schedule has been completed but also of the civic works and development works with respect to the entire project has been completed in terms of the sanction plan and conditions imposed in the sanction plan.
5. It is only after the authorities make sure that the development works of the entire project is complete, shall the first respondent authorities release the balance of 14400 sq. ft. of developed sital area in favour of the third respondent.
9. Needless to observe that this petition is disposed of in the above terms, based on the undertaking given by the third respondent. If for some reason if the third respondent is unable to fulfil the obligation undertaken before this Court, the 12 petitioners are free to move this Court by filing another petition on the same cause of action.
It is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-