Karnataka High Court
M/S K B L And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 27 August, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.36421/2018 &
W.P. Nos. 36680-36708/2018 & 37227-38397/2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S K. B. L. & SONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERD OFFICE AT
NO. 1, SILICON CITY ENCLAVE,
KUMARA NURSERY, NEW BANK COLONY,
KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURLU 560062.
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. L. RAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2
2. THE CHAIRMAN
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
(MUDA),
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
K. G. KOPPAL, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA,
CHAMRAJPURA, MYSURU 570005,
KARNATAKA.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
(MUDA),
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
K. G. KOPPAL, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU 570005,
KARNATAKA.
4. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
(MUDA),
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD,
K G KOPPAL, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA,
CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU 570005,
KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
ISSUE RELEASE ORDER PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO
SELL 1201 DEVELOPED SITES DULY APPROVED BY MUDA
3
PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-A DATED 02.03.2018 WITHIN A
TIME-FRAME THAT MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT;
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has filed these writ petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue release order permitting the petitioner to sell 1201 developed sites duly approved by MUDA pursuant to Annexure-A dated 2.3.2018 within a time-frame.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 4.6.2018 the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandya district converted the land bearing Sy.Nos.2 to 45 totally measuring 88 acres 12 guntas situated at Kuppedada village, Belagula hobli, Srirangapatna taluk, Mandya district from agricultural to 4 non-agricultural residential purpose. On 17.6.2017 the petitioner purchased 85 acres 36 guntas of the converted land for formation of residential layout. On 5.7.2017 the petitioner purchased 2 acres 16 guntas of the converted land for formation of residential lay-out. On 29.12.2017 the concerned jurisdictional Panchayath authorities have transferred khatha in the name of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid properties, totally measuring 88 acres 12 guntas. It is further stated by the petitioner that on 27.1.2018 the Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) sanctioned lay-out plan for the purpose of formation of residential lay-out. On 12.2.2018 the respondents issued work order subject to terms and conditions for development of the said properties. On 24.2.2018 the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents, particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue Release Order permitting the petitioner to sell developed sites duly approved by MUDA. On 2.3.2018 the Assistant 5 Director of Town Planning, MUDA has issued impugned Endorsement as per Annexure-A directing the petitioner to produce 'No Objection Certificates' from the various authorities mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 4 of the said Endorsement. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has contended that once the MUDA sanctioned the lay-out plan for the purpose of formation of residential lay-out on 27.1.2018 and once the work order issued with certain terms and conditions on 12.2.2018, it is the duty of the respondents, in particular Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release the developed sites duly approved by the MUDA in favour of the petitioner. The same has not been done. 6 He further contended that in the impugned Endorsement at Serial Nos.1 to 4 the Assistant Director of Town Planning, MUDA has directed to produce 'No Objection Certificates' from the various statutory authorities. The petitioner has complied the same by producing the No Objection Certificates and Satisfactory Certificates issued by the statutory authorities, which are as under:
(i) Annexure-H dated 12.4.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Mysore.
(ii) Annexure-J and J1 dated 14.3.2018 and 1.12.2017 respectively issued by the Senior Environmental Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
(iii) Annexure-K, K1 and K2 dated 31.1.2018, 24.2.2018 and 28.2.2018 respectively issued by the Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Board.7
(iv) Annexure-L dated 4.7.2018 issued by the Mysore Urban Development Authority.
Therefore the writ petitions have to be allowed granting the prayer as sought for.
5. Per contra, Sri T.P. Vekananda, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that if the petitioner complied all the requirements sought for by the office of the 4th respondent as per Annexure-A dated 2.3.2018, the respondents will consider the request of the petitioner for issuing final approved plan for release of developed sites within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The said submission is placed on record.
6. Learned Government Advocate while supporting the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the authority has to act in accordance with law. The said submission is also placed on record. 8
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has purchased totally 88 acres 12 guntas of land under the registered sale deeds dated 17.6.2017 and 5.7.2017. It is also not in dispute that the concerned jurisdictional authorities also transferred the khatha in the name of the petitioner on 29.12.2017. It is an undisputed fact that the MUDA sanctioned lay-out for the purpose of formation of residential layout on 27.1.2018. Accordingly, the respondents issued work order for development of the said properties on 12.2.2018. When the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 24.2.2018 to issue release order permitting it to sell developed sites duly approved by the MUDA, the impugned Endorsement came to be issued. In the impugned Endorsement dated 2.3.2018, it is specifically stated that necessary further action will be taken after petitioner producing the following No Objection Certificates from the statutory authorities: 9
1. ¥À¸ æ ÁÛ¦vÀ «£Áå¸Àz° À è ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸Àg§ À gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀZg À AÀ r PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀȦÛPg À ª À ÁV ¥ÀÆtðUÀƽ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¤ÃgÀÄ ¸Àg§ À gÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ M¼ÀZg À AÀ r ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¤gÁPÉÃë ¥ÀuÁ ¥Àv.Àæ
2. ¥À¸ æ ÁÛ¦vÀ «£Áå¸Àz° À è «zÀÄåvï ¸Àg§ À gÁdÄ PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀȦÛPg À ª À ÁV ¥ÀÆtðUÀƽ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ZÁªÀÄÄAqÉñÀj é «zÀÄåvï ¸Àg§ À gÁdÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¤gÁPÉÃë ¥ÀuÁ ¥Àv.Àæ
3. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°£Àå ¤AiÀÄAvÀt æ ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ¤gÁPÉÃë ¥ÀuÁ ¥Àv.Àæ
4. C£ÀĪÉÆâvÀ «£Áå¸ÀzAÀ vÉ J¯Áè ¹«¯ï PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀȦÛPg À ª À ÁV ¥ÀÆtðUÀƽ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ vÁAwæPÀ ±ÁSɬÄAzÀ ¥Àq¢ É gÀĪÀ zÀÈrÃPÀgt À ¥Àv.Àæ
8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement sought in Annexure-A by the MUDA has been complied by the petitioner by producing No Objection Certificates and Satisfactory Certificates issued by the statutory authorities viz., Water Supply Sewerage Board, Mysore; Karnataka State Pollution Control 10 Board; Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Board; and Technical Department of MUDA as per Annexures-H,J,J1,K, K1, K2 and L. If the petitioner already produced all the material documents as required by the MUDA, there is no impediment for the MUDA to consider and pass appropriate orders for release of sites in favour of the petitioner. It is the duty of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - MUDA to consider the 'No Objection Certificates' obtained by the petitioner as per Annexures-H,J,J1,K, K1, K2 and L from various authorities as required under Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period. The same has not been done. Therefore the petitioner has made out judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents, especially Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the request of the petitioner for issue of final approved plan releasing the 11 developed sites in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to Annexure-A dated 2.3.2018 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-