Karnataka High Court
Sri. Krishnappa @ M.V. Krishnegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:33577
WP No. 3586 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 3586 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNAPPA @ M.V. KRISHNEGOWDA
SON OF LATE VISHAKANTE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE
ILVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 570 021
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
by R DEEPA MULTI STORIED BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COMPLEX, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
I BLOCK, MYSURU 570 022
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
URBAN AND RURAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
COMPLEX, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
I BLCOK, MYSURU 570 022
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:33577
WP No. 3586 of 2024
4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ILLAVALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ILAALA, MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 570 022
5. SMT. T.P PRIYANKA
D/O A.T PRAKASH RAO
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN
A BLOCK, S.S. LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT PLAN VIDE
ORDER BEARING NO.JAM.NI.MY/NA.YO(2)/V.NA.A/15/2017-18,
DTD 22.06.2017 WHEREIN ISSUED A TECHNICAL APPROVAL
TO THE RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT FORMED ILLEGALLY BY
INCLUDING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT A PART
OF LAYOUT AND THE LAYOUT APPROVED AND ISSUED BY THE
R2 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND PERUSAL
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-R AS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND THE SAME IS
APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 76-O(iii) OF THE
KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:33577
WP No. 3586 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for quashing of residential layout plan dated 22.06.2017, wherein issued a Technical approval to the residential layout formed illegally by including the schedule property which is not a part of layout and the layout approved and issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-R is illegal, arbitrary and also sought for mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate appropriate steps to cancel or revoke the impugned residential layout plan dated 22.06.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought not to have approved the Technical residential layout formed in sy.no.138/4 measuring 1 acre, sy.no.151/4 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas and sy.no.146/2 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas of the properties situated at Mydanahalli village, Ilavla hobli, -4- NC: 2024:KHC:33577 WP No. 3586 of 2024 Mysuru Taluk, by illegally including the schedule property by approving impugned layout plan which is exclusively belong to the petitioner. He submits that impugned layout plan issued a Technical approval to the residential layout formed illegally by violating the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to quash Annexure-R.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is only a Technical approval. Respondent No.2 is yet to take a decision on the final approval. Respondent No.2 has not taken any decision. Hence the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature and is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:33577 WP No. 3586 of 2024
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is challenging the Technical approval issued by respondent No.2 dated 22.06.2017. The respondent No.2 is yet to take final approval. In order to consider the case in hand it is necessary to examine Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 which reads as under:
17. Sanction for [single plot or sub-
division] of plot or lay-out of private street. [(1) The State Government shall by rules prescribe the standards to be followed and minimum extent of Land to be considered for approval of Layout for sub dividing a plot and prescribe the minimum extent of area to be earmarked for park, open spaces and civic amenity sites and laying out roads. Every person who intends to [develop a single plot or] sub divide his plot by making a layout on or after the date of the publication of the declaration of Local Planning Area under section 4-A, shall submit detailed plan of the layout of his plot showing layout of roads, sub-divided plots and earmarking area for park and open spaces and civic amenities to such extent and in such manner, as prescribed.
(2) The Planning Authority may, within the prescribed period, sanction such plan either without modification or subject to such modifications and -6- NC: 2024:KHC:33577 WP No. 3586 of 2024 conditions as it considers expedient or may refuse to give sanction, if the planning authority is of the opinion that such plan is not in any way consistent with the proposals of the Master Plan.
Provided that where the Master Plans are not finally approved, in such cases the Planning Authority may sanction the layout plan as per the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time.
6. As per Section 17(1) the State Government has to follow the rules prescribed to consider for the approval of the layout prescribed in the minimum extent of land for park, open spaces and civic amenities, sites and laying out roads and as per section 4-A of the Act of 1961, shall submit a detailed plan of layout showing layout of roads etc. The Planning Authority within a prescribed period, sanction such plan either without modification or subject to such modification or may refuse to give sanction and further the Planning Authority is of the opinion that such plan is not in any way consistent with the proposals of the Master Plan. Further, the authority must decide to sanction the layout under Section 2 which shall sanction -7- NC: 2024:KHC:33577 WP No. 3586 of 2024 approval of layout in accordance with such rules. The Planning Authority after completion of all the development works on obtaining the certificate of completion from the concerned authorities may issue a final layout plan and further, no commencing certificate or license will be sanctioned or issued for building or sites unless final layout plan is issued.
7. Admittedly, the Planning Authority has not issued provisional layout plan to respondent No.5. the respondent No.5 is yet to fulfill the conditions mentioned in Section 17 of the Act, 1961. The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging only the Technical approval is premature as the Planning Authority has not agreed to final approval as required under Section 17 of the Act, 1961. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:33577 WP No. 3586 of 2024
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner, in case if the Planning Authority issues a final approval, the petitioner may challenge the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS