M/S Taj Gvk Hotels And Resorts Limited vs Urban Development Department on 25 April, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Taj Gvk Hotels And Resorts Limited vs Urban Development Department on 25 April, 2016

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION NO.16460 OF 2016 [GM-KIADB]

BETWEEN:

M/S.TAJ GVK HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT TAJ KRISHNA, ROAD NO.1
BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034
TELENGANA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.MURALI VARADARAJAN.                ... PETITIONER

          (BY SRI: PRASHANTH KUMAR.D, ADVOCATE
                    FOR M/S.POOVAYYA & CO.,)
AND:

1.     URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       STATE OF KARNATAKA
       ROOM NO.435, VIKASA SOUDHA
       4TH FLOOR, BENGALURU 560001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INSTRIES
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       BENGALURU 560001.
       REPRESENTED BY THE
       ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

3.     BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK (WEST)
       BENGLAUUR 560 020
       REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
                                 2


4.    THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
      DEVELOPMENT BOARD
      4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
      KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
      BENGALURU 560 0001.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

5.    KARNATAKA UDYOGA MITRA (KUM)
      3RD FLOOR, EAST WING
      KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
      BENGALURU 560 001, KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      MANAGING DIRECTOR.             ... RESPONDENTS

      (BY: SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L.. A.G.A. FOR R1 & R2;
           SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
           SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
           SRI C.M.POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE
THAT THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY ALLOTTED BY R4 IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE SUBJECTED TO
CAHNGE OF LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO
INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AS PER THE CDP IN LIGHT OF THE
DECLARATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION
3[1] OF KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT,
1966 AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a declaration that the schedule property allotted by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner does not require change of land use from residential zone to industrial zone as per the C.D.P. and in the alternative, the petitioner has sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 3 3 to forthwith take necessary steps to carry out the change by taking note of the representation dated 19.2.2016 vide Annexure-A.

2. The petitioner has been allotted the land which initially was in the industrial zone and thereafter in the revised master plan, it was indicated in the residential zone. The land is situate in Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Since the said area has been declared as an industrial area under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 and has thereafter been shown as residential zone, the matter, in any event, would have to be considered by the respondent No.1 as to whether the consideration in terms of Clause 3.16 of the Zonal Regulations could be taken into consideration and on case to case basis exemption could be granted.

3. Since the representation dated 19.2.2016 is yet to be considered by the respondents, in the instant petition, the declaration as sought would not arise for consideration at this juncture. However, the alternative prayer made by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 4 first respondent to consider the representation as at Annexure-A in accordance with law will have to be granted.

4. In that view, the first respondent shall take note of the representation dated 19.2.2016 submitted by the petitioner take into consideration all aspects of the matter including the discretion available to the first respondent and the Zonal Regulations and pass appropriate orders thereon. To enable the consideration in a time frame, the petitioner shall now submit one more copy of the representation to the first respondent. The first respondent shall secure all the details and take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date on which the copy is furnished and the result thereon shall be intimated to the petitioner. All other contentions in that regard are left open.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE VGR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court