Karnataka High Court
Y V Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25665
WP No. 6601 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. 6601 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
Y V PRASAD
S/O Y DASANNA
AGE 64 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS,
R/O NO.104, 10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S SHETTY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed VIKASA SOUDHA,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 001
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25665
WP No. 6601 of 2023
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (MAHADEVAPURA)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560048.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(LAND ACQUSITION AND TDR)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARAL PALIKE,
FIRST FLOOR, ANNEX BUILDING-3,
CENTRAL OFFICER, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE , BBMP
MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048.
7. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MARTHAHALLI SUB DIVISION, BBMP
MARTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560037.
8. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NITHYANANDA K.R., AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7
SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE NO.SA.KAA.A./MAA.U,VI./PR/617/2022-23 DTD
31.01.2023 PASSED BY THE R-7 VIDE ANNX-A. GRANT AN
INTERIM ORDER THAT THE NOTICE
NO.SA.KAA.A./MAA.U,VI./PR/617/2022-23 DTD 31.01.2023
PASSED BY THE R-7 TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE W.P.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25665
WP No. 6601 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
- B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned notice dated 31.01.2023 at Annexure 'A' issued by respondent No.7-Assistant Executive Engineer, Marathahalli Sub- Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the respondent-BBMP for securing a building licence and sanction plan. Accordingly, during the year 2018, the plan was sanctioned, in terms of Annexure 'P' permitting the petitioner to put up construction on a portion of the property. The licence was valid between 16.11.2018 and 15.11.2020. The petitioner accordingly took up construction. However, by issuing the impugned notice, respondent No.7-Assistant Executive Engineer sought to cause obstruction in the construction work undertaken by the petitioner.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25665 WP No. 6601 of 2023
3. Learned Counsel submits that it is stated in the impugned notice that the petitioner has taken up construction in the portion of the property which was marked as 'land left for proposed road'. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has not taken up construction in the said portion of the property, although it belongs to the petitioner. However, the petitioner cannot be prevented from putting up construction in terms of the sanction plan.
4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that having issued a sanction plan and a building licence, the respondent-BBMP authorities cannot prevent the petitioner from putting up construction in terms of the sanction plan. Insofar as the land left for proposed road, in the property belonging to the petitioner, if the respondent-BBMP authorities are calling upon the petitioner to give up the same free of cost, then it will be clearly against the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25665 WP No. 6601 of 2023 provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This issue was elaborately considered by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court 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. Nevertheless, cause of action would arise for the petitioner insofar as the land earmarked for the proposed road, only if action is taken by the respondent-BBMP authorities to form a road without granting compensation or grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Nevertheless, for the present, we are only concerned with the plan sanction obtained by the petitioner and the construction that can be put up by the petitioner accordingly.
5. This Court, having been satisfied that the petitioner had obtained a building licence and sanction plan to put up construction, in terms of Annexure 'P', the petitioner -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25665 WP No. 6601 of 2023 cannot be prevented from putting up construction accordingly. It is hereby directed that the respondent- BBMP authorities shall not prevent the petitioner from putting up construction in accordance with the sanction plan at Annexure 'P'. If inspite of such directions any obstruction is caused by any of the Officers of the BBMP, liberty is given to the petitioner to move this Court and stringent action will be taken against the concerned Officer, if he prevents the petitioner from putting up construction in accordance with the sanction plan. On the other hand, if the period of trading licence has expired, the petition may seek renewal of the licence. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-