Karnataka High Court
Smt Prabhavathi M S vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8859 OF 2021 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PRABHAVATHI M.S.,
W/O LATE P.S.SRINIVASMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
2. DR.SUBRAMANYA P.S.,
S/O LATE P.S.SRINIVASMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT BRAHMINS STREET,
KOTE, PERIYAPATNA TOWN,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 571 123.
2
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING, MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
5. TAHASILDAR
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
PERIYAPATNA DISTRICT - 571 107.
6. CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PERIYAPATNA TOWN,
PERIYAPATNA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI M.B.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6
(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS; QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.07.2019
(ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.11.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition call in question an order dated 11-07-2019 by which the application given by the petitioners for change of khata is turned down by the 6th respondent/Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Periyapatna.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of one late P.S.Srinivasamurthy, residents of Periyapatna Town.
The land in Sy.No.322/1 of Periyapatna is claimed by the petitioners to be their ancestral property which were held by the 2nd petitioner's grandfather late P.R.Subba Rao. Khata of the said property is claimed to have been in the name of the said late P.R.Subba Rao right from 1924-25. Pursuant to the death of the grandfather of the 2nd petitioner, khata of the said property was changed in the name of the father of the 2nd petitioner. The father of the 2nd petitioner had approached the 4 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur seeking change of land use from agriculture to non-agricultural/residential purpose. Such change of land use was accorded to the father of the 2nd petitioner on 08.10.1997.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner's father did not immediately put the land into any use after having changed the nature of the land from agriculture to non- agricultural purposes for close to 20 years and died intestate on 28.11.2016. The petitioners who are the surviving members of the family submitted all necessary details and got revenue records changed into their names. After getting the records changed into their names, the petitioners submitted an application to respondent No.6/Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council seeking change of khata of the subject property into their names. On receipt of the application and considering the same, the 6th respondent issued an endorsement on 11.07.2019 indicating that the subject property is also a converted land and the petitioners have to approach the 4th 5 respondent/Assistant Director of the Department of Town and Country Planning seeking approval of the plan and then approach the 6th respondent for issuance of khata. It is this endorsement that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject writ petition.
4. Heard Sri K. Anandarama, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.B.Prabhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the endorsement issued by the 6th respondent, who is the authority who has to issue khata in favour of the petitioners is contrary to law. The khata of the subject property stood in the name of grandfather of the 2nd petitioner from time immemorial and now is to be issued in the names of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of the holder of the khata who died intestate. The learned counsel would submit that the action 6 of the 6th respondent is contrary to Section 101 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the 1964 Act' for short).
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri M.B.Prabhakar appearing for the 6th respondent would submit that the subject property of the petitioners comes within the planning area of the Planning Authority and once it comes within jurisdiction of the Planning Authority, no khata can be issued in terms of law unless change of land use is sought by the petitioners from the hands of the Planning Authority and would submit that the writ petition is misconceived and the petitioners have violated the orders of this Court which had directed not to put up any construction and had permitted only leveling of the land, but the petitioners have put up a compound wall in violation of the interim order. He would submit that the writ petition is to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the materials on record.
7
8. The issue that falls for my consideration is, whether the impugned endorsement directing the petitioners to approach the Department of Town and Planning is valid in the eye of law?
9. To consider the said issue it is germane to notice certain provisions with regard to issuance of khata under the 1964 Act and the embargo upon issuance of such khata under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the KTCP Act' for short). Section 101 of the 1964 Act deals with assessment and liability to tax on buildings and lands and reads as follows:
"101. Description and class of property tax.- (1) Unless exempted under this Act or any other law, property tax shall be levied every year on all buildings or vacant land or both situated within the municipal area.
(2) The property tax shall be levied in case of,-
(a) commercial building at such percentage not being less than 0.5 percent (rupees five per thousand) and not more than two per cent of taxable capital value of the building.
(b) residential building and buildings other than commercial at such percentage not being less than 0.3 percent (rupees three per thousand) and not more than 1 [one per cent (rupees ten per thousand)]1 of taxable capital value of the building.8
(c) vacant land measuring not above one thousand square meters, at not less than 0.1 per cent (rupees one per thousand) and not more than 0.2 per cent (rupees two per thousand) of taxable capital value of land.
(d) vacant land measuring above one thousand square meters but not above four thousand square meters, at not less than 0.025 per cent (rupees twenty five per lakh) and not more than 0.05 (rupees fifty per lakh) of taxable capital value of land.
(e) vacant land measuring above four thousand square meters, at not less than 0.01 per cent (rupees ten per lakh) and not more than 0.02 per cent (rupees twenty per lakh) of taxable capital value of land.
(3) Subject to the minimum and the maximum rates specified in subsection (2), the Municipal Council shall, fix the property tax at such percentage of the taxable capital value of the buildings or vacant land or both having regard to the location, type of construction of the building, nature of use to which the vacant land or building is put, area of the vacant land, plinth area of the building, age of the building and such other criteria as may be prescribed:
Provided that the percentage so fixed may be different in different areas and for different classes of buildings and lands.
Provided further that the land appurtenant to a building shall be exempted from levy of Property Tax."
It is in terms of the aforesaid provision that tax has to be determined for a building or a land. To assess and demand tax 9 under Section 101, the property should stand in the name of the assessee. If the property stands in the name of the assessee, the property records i.e., khata should be in the name of such assessee.
10. It is not in dispute that khata of the subject property stood in the name of father of the 2nd petitioner for long years. It is also not in dispute that the deceased father had got the land converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, in the case at hand, khata stood in the name of the earlier khatedar and the land is converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. In the normal circumstance, khata could have been issued to the subject property or any development in the said property after consulting Planning Authority by the Municipal Council in terms of Section 387. Section 387 of the 1964 Act reads as follows:
"387. Consultation with Planning Authority.-- The Municipal Council shall, in places where the Planning Authority has not been constituted under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, consult the nearest planning authority in matters affecting town planning."10
Section 387 mandates that the Municipal Council in places where the Planning Authority has not been consulted shall consult the nearest Planning Authority in matters affecting Town Planning.
11. The circumstance that has emerged is, the Government has issued Notification on 07.03.2018 in terms of Section 4-A(4) of the KTCP Act declaring entire Town of Periyapatna to be coming within the Hunsur Local Planning Authority. The application given by the petitioners seeking change of khata is on 28.06.2019. Therefore, by the time when the application is preferred by the petitioners, a notification issued by Government was already in place declaring the property of the petitioners which is in Periyapatna to be coming under the Hunsur Local Planning Authority. Such notification issued by Government is traceable to Section 4A of the KTCP Act which empowers the State Government to issue a notification declaring any area to be 11 the Local Planning Area. Section 4A of the KTCP Act reads as follows:
"4-A. Declaration of Local Planning Areas, their amalgamation, sub-division, inclusion of any area in a Local Planning Area. - (1) The State Government may, by notification, declare any area in the state to be a Local Planning Area for the purposes of this Act, or include within such local planning area, any area adjacent thereto, and on such declaration or inclusion this Act shall apply to such area:
Provided that no military cantonment or part of a military cantonment shall be included in any such area:
Provided further that in the case of the heritage area, the local planning area declared under this sub-section shall be coterminous with the heritage area.
(2) Every such notification shall define the limits of the area to which it relates.
(3) The State Government may, after consultation with the Board, amalgamate two or more planning areas into one local planning area, sub-divide a local planning area into different local planning area, and include such divided areas in any other local planning area.
(4) The State Government may, by notification, direct that all or any of the rules, regulations, orders, directions and powers made, issued, conferred and in force in any other local planning area at the time, with such exceptions and adaptations and modifications as may be considered necessary by the State Government, shall apply to the area declared as, amalgamated with or included in, a local planning area under this section and such rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders, directions and powers shall forthwith apply to such local planning area without further publication.12
(5) When local planning area are amalgamated or sub-divided, or such sub-divided areas are included in other local planning areas, the State Government shall, after consulting the Board, the Planning Authority or authorities concerned, frame a scheme determining what portion of the balance of the fund of the Planning Authority shall vest in the Planning Authority or authorities concerned and in what manner the properties and liabilities of the planning authority or authorities shall be apportioned amongst them and on the scheme being notified the fund, property and liabilities shall vest and be apportioned accordingly."
In terms of Section 4-A(4), the notification issued by the State dated 07.03.2018 reads as follows:
"C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ AiÉÆÃd£Á PÁAiÉÄÝ 1961gÀ PÀ®A 4(J)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ¦jAiÀiÁ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀlÖtzÀ ºÁ° ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ J¯ÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÉAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸À¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ EzÉà PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 2(7)(©) gÀ°è£À CªÀPÁ±ÀzÀAvÉ ¦jAiÀiÁ¥ÀlÖt ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁV PÀÆqÀ¯Éà eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 4(J)(4)gÀ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ ªÀĺÁAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀrAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è AiÉÆÃd£Á§zÀÝ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£É DzÉñÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, «£Áå¸À C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀÄt¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹gÀĪÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À°è£À ¥Áj¨sÁµÉ, G¥À «¨sÀd£É ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ; PÀlÖqÀ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁUÀ½UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¹ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ / ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÉÆÃd£Á §zÀÞªÁV ¤AiÀÄAwæ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.13
C£ÀħAzsÀ- 1 gÀ°è ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀħAzsÀ- 2 gÀ°è ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ AiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ J¯ÉèAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DYÁÕ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸À»/-
(£ÁUÀgÁd) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ."
Thus, as observed hereinabove, the subject property is now within the limits of the local planning area.
12. If the property comes within the limits of the Local Planning Authority issuance of khata of such property is also regulated under the KTCP Act. Section 17 which deals with sanction of a plan for a single plot or for a layout, would mean either it is for a single residential house or for a layout which is a cluster of houses, sanction will have to be accorded under Section 17 of the KTCP Act. Section 17(2-C)(vii) of the KTCP Act places an unambiguous embargo upon the Local Authority under the 1964 Act to issue khata or property index number to such properties. The said provision reads as follows: 14
"17. Sanction for single plot or sub-division of plot or lay-out of private street. - (1) ... ... ...
(2-C) ... ... ... ...
(vii) Any building site which has not been released by the Planning Authority shall not be issued any khata or given property index number (e- khata) under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993."
(Emphasis supplied) The embargo under the aforesaid provision is that any building site which has not been released by the Planning Authority shall not be issued any e-khata.
13. Admittedly, the subject land of the petitioners comes within the planning area and the Planning Authority has not yet released the land from its ambit in accordance with the KTCP Act. Therefore, no fault can be found with the endorsement issued by the 6th respondent directing the petitioners to approach the Department of Town & Country Planning or the Planning Authority since the property of the petitioners is 15 situated within the planning area. Once the property comes within the planning area, the provisions of the KTCP Act would be applicable to such area. The KTCP Act also defines what is 'development' in such area. Section 2(1-c) deals with development and reads as follows:
"(1-c) "Development" with its grammatical variations, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land, or in the use of any building or land and includes sub-division of any land."
'Development' in terms of KTCP Act would mean any grammatical variations carried out in the building, engineering, mining or any other operations. Therefore, the very act of the petitioners in putting up a compound without the concurrence of the Planning Authority was itself contrary to law. The 'Planning Authority' is defined under Section 2(7) of the KTCP Act and reads as follows:
"7. "Planning Authority" means -
(a) in a case of -
(i) the local planning area comprising the City of
Bangalore, the Bangalore Development
Authority, and;
16
(1-a) the local planning area comprising any urban area defined in the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, the Urban Development Authority of such urban area;
(i-b) the heritage area as defined in the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'heritage area'), the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority constituted, under that Act;
(ii) Any other local planning area in respect of which the State Government may deem it expedient to constitute a separate Planning Authority, the Planning Authority constituted under this Act.
(b) In the case of any local planning area in respect of which a Planning Authority is not constituted under this Act, the Town Improvement Board constituted under any law for the time being in force having jurisdiction over such local planning area, and where there is no such Town Improvement Board, the local authority having jurisdiction over such local planning area."
(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the 1964 Act insofar as issuance of khata will prevail over the KTCP Act as issuance of khata has nothing to do with the declaration of 17 planning area is unacceptable, in terms of the clear embargo as aforesaid, in the KTCP Act. The KTCP Act will prevail over the 1964 Act in terms of Section 76-M of the KTCP Act, which has an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force.
Section 76-M of the KTCP Act reads as follows:-
"76-M. Effect of other laws.- (1) Savfe as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law.-
(a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval o9r sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained;
(b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained."18
Section 76-M(2)(b) mandates that when permission for development has not been obtained under the KTCP Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out for the reason that sanction, approval or permission is accorded under any other law for such development.
14. Therefore, what would unmistakably emerge from Section 76-M of the KTCP Act is that permission even if obtained for conversion of land from the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, it will not clothe the beneficiary of such conversion for undertaking any development activities in a planning area without the express permission of the Planning Authority, as the act of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 would stand ousted in law, in view of the afore-quoted overriding effect, in terms of Section 76-M of the KTCP Act. The overriding effect of the KTCP Act is considered in its affirmation by the Apex Court in the latest judgment in the case of BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY v. BIRLASUPER BULK 19 TERMINAL - (2019) 12 SCC 572, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"21. The non obstante clause in Section 76-M of the KTCP Act reads as under:
"76-M. Effect of other laws.--(1) Save as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law--
(a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained;
(b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained."
30. Section 14 read with Section 18 of the KTCP Act clearly connotes that the Planning Authority is entrusted with the function of granting licence to put up construction on the land including the land acquired and allotted by the Board under the KIAD Act. This is also clear from the provisions contained in the non obstante clause in Section 76-M of the KTCP Act which declares that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. There is nothing in the provisions of this 20 Act to exclude or exempt the lands which are covered by the KIAD Act."
15. In the light of the afore-narrated provisions of law, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioners will have now to approach the Planning Authority i.e., Hunsur Local Planning Authority and seek change of land use notwithstanding the fact that the land is already converted, as the subject property is now within the planning area and once the Planning Authority releases the land from its ambit in accordance with law, the 6th respondent would then issue khata in favour of the petitioners, which would be in tune with the afore-quoted provisions of the KTCP Act.
16. Though it is the land of the petitioners and they have a right to develop the said land, once the land comes within the planning area, the Government is empowered to regulate such usage by legislation. One such legislation is the KTCP Act. This regulatory measure of the lands coming within the planning area 21 under the KTCP Act is recognized and affirmed by the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in T.VIJAYALAKSHMI v. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER AND ANOTHER - (2006)8 SCC 502 - wherein the Apex Court holds as follows "13. Town Planning legislations are regulatory in nature. The right to property of a person would include a right to construct a building. Such a right, however, can be restricted by reason of a legislation. In terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, a comprehensive development plan was prepared. It indisputably is still in force. Whether the amendments to the said comprehensive development plan as proposed by the Authority would ultimately be accepted by the State or not is uncertain. It is yet to apply its mind. Amendments to a development plan must conform to the provisions of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the State has called for objection from the citizens. Ecological balance no doubt is required to be maintained and the courts while interpreting a statute should bestow serious consideration in this behalf, but ecological aspects, it is trite, are ordinarily a part of the town planning legislation. If in the legislation itself or in the statute governing the field, ecological aspects have not been taken into consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and the Authority must take the blame therefor. We must assume that these aspects of the matter were taken into consideration by the Authority and the State. But the rights of the parties cannot be intermeddled with so long as an appropriate amendment in the legislation is not brought into force.
... ... ... ...
22
15. The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play."
In the light of the afore- extracted provisions of the KTCP Act and the judgments of the Apex Court, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are unacceptable.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(ii) The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Planning Authority seeking redressal of their grievance and the Planning Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance 23 with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ