Karnataka High Court
Sri. B M Jagadish vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25663
WP No. 11844 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B M JAGADISH
S/O MARLLINGAIAH
AGED 57 YEARS
NO 86A, CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE NORTH 560010
AADHAR NO 574 2914 3425
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Digitally signed
by JUANITA VIKAS SOUDHA
THEJESWINI
BENGALURU 560001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE, N R SQUARE
BENGALURU 560002
REP BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25663
WP No. 11844 of 2023
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560098
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1
SRI. B.S. SATYANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 11/04/2023 BEARING NO. SA.
NI./(NAYO)/RARANAVA/PR/04/22-23 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED
BY R-3 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICE ORDER DTD
31/01/2023 BEARING NO.HA.NI.NA.YO/P.R/1338/2022-23
(ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY R-2 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner herein approached the third respondent-Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub-Division, seeking sanction of a building licence and plan in terms of Annexure 'D'.
2. Learned Counsel submits that much prior to the submission of the sanction plan, the petitioner had sought information from the BBMP authorities and the petitioner was told that the plan has to be submitted showing 12.19 -3- NC: 2023:KHC:25663 WP No. 11844 of 2023 mtrs. in the northern side of the property for expansion of road and plan will not be sanctioned in the said area. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a proposed plan leaving out 12.19 mtrs. in the northern side of the property for the purposes of road widening. Thereafter, in terms of the bye-laws, the plan was submitted for putting up a residential building. However, before approving the plan the petitioner was issued with the impugned communication dated 11.04.2023 at Annexure 'A' calling upon the petitioner to relinquish the portion earmarked for road widening, free of cost. Learned Counsel submits that the question as to whether a private property should be relinquished free of cost to the local authorities such as BBMP without payment of compensation was considered by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters dated 17.01.2022. Learned Counsel submits that the co- ordinate Bench has clearly held that such demand made by the local authorities to relinquish a private property -4- NC: 2023:KHC:25663 WP No. 11844 of 2023 free of cost for the purposes of formation of a road or widening of road will be clearly contrary to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
3. Learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to an office order dated 31.01.2023 at Annexure 'B'. However, learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP would submit that the Office Order dated 31.01.2023 at Annexure 'B' is an internal communication made by the Chief Commissioner, BBMP to all the concerned Officers of the BBMP in the matter of considering a sanctioned plan for the purpose of the Floor Area Ratio and making use of the benefit of Transferable Development Rights. At any rate, it is submitted that there is no occasion for the petitioner to question the said internal communication made by the Chief Commissioner to the Officers of the BBMP.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP and on -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25663 WP No. 11844 of 2023 perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the third respondent-Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Sub- Division, cannot insist that the petitioner should relinquish a portion of his property free of cost for the purposes of road widening. This issue has been considered by the co- ordinate Bench in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra) and the Hon'ble Division Bench has also confirmed the said judgment in W.A.No.335/2022 dated 28.07.2022. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is required to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 11.04.2023 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure 'D' and proceed in accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner free of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25663 WP No. 11844 of 2023 cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
6. At any rate, the plan for sanction and issuance of building license shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-