Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs M/S Hamara Shelters Private Limited on 18 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WA No.3266/2013 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
J.C. ROAD, N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560002
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
LAND ACQUISTIONER, TDR
BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU-560002
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri.SANDEEP PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. M/S HAMARA SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.141, VITAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. GIRISH GUPTA H.S
2. THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (APKK & M LTD)
A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT III FLOOR, NANJAPPA MANSION, 29/2,
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027
-2-
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE
BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S MAHESH, ADV. FOR
M/s. MAHESH & CO, FOR C/R.1
SRI.BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, PRL.G.A FOR R.3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.33033/2012 DATED
24/04/2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA .J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.2013 passed in WP No.33033/2012 and connected matters is assailed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in this writ appeal. By the said interim order, the appellant BBMP has been directed to accord sanction to the integrated plan subject to the following conditions;
a) the result of the Writ Petitions and
b) an undertaking being given by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in the form of an affidavit not to claim any equities.
-3-It has also been clarified by the learned Single Judge that the sanction to be accorded to the integrated plan must be strictly in accordance with the building bye-laws, 2003. The said direction has been assailed by the BBMP in this Writ Appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. During the course of submissions, our attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the meeting held under the chairmanship of the Principal Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, dated 27.11.2012, in which meeting, the Chief Engineer of the BBMP and the Joint Director, Town Planning (South), BBMP, have also participated, in which they have in categorical terms stated that they had no objection to approve the plan in respect of Metro Station, residential complex and Commercial complex integrated with Metro Station, on the basis of which certain conclusions have been arrived at. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Single Judge was right in directing that sanction be accorded subject to the terms referred to above.
-4-
4. We have perused the proceedings of the meeting. At paragraph-13 of the said proceedings, the Chief Engineer of BBMP has stated as follows;
" 13. Sri.Ramesh, Chief Engineer, BBMP informed that if this is agreed to by the Mantri Developers, BBMP has no objection to approve the Plan (in respect of Metro Station and the residential complex and the commercial complex integrated with Metro Station), subject to the condition mentioned above by MD, BMRCL)"
5. After discussions, the following decision has been taken;
" BBMP shall approve the plan jointly submitted by BMRCL and Mantri Developers for the Swastik Metro Station and the residential complex and the commercial complex integrated with Swastik Metro Station, within next 8 days subject to the condition that in case in the court BBMP proves that the land against which Mantri Developers has been issued TDR, actually is a Government land, then Mantri Developers shall within 3 months of such order, return the TDR to BBMP and bear the cost therefor.
17. BBMP and Mantri Developers agreed to above."
6. Having regard to the categorical statement made on behalf of BBMP that it had no objection to approve the plan and that BBMP would approve the plan subject to the decision -5- in the Writ Petition out of which this Writ Appeal arises, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the BBMP to accord sanction to the plan submitted for an integrated project, keeping in mind the building bye-laws, 2003. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, I.A No.II/2013 would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv