Domlur 2nd Stage Residents Association (Regd.) vs The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore International Centre and The Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Assistant Director (Town Planning) Bangalore Development Authority

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The petitioner herein, a registered Association of residents of Domlur 2nd Stage, has come up in this writ petition impugning allotment of Civic Amenity (C.A.) site No. 7 situated at 4th Main, 3rd Cross, Domlur 2nd Stage, 2nd Phase, Bangalore, in favour of respondent No. 2 herein. The petition is filed on the premise that the site in question is a park cum play ground as declared under the Comprehensive Development Plan issued by respondent No. 1-Bangalore Development Authority It is contended that the aforesaid C.A. site No. 7 is the only lung space available for residents of Domlur and as such allotting the same in favour of respondent No. 2 is against the interest of residents of Domlur. In the proceedings, after service of notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. According to respondent No. 1, the property in question is not a park, but is a C.A. site, which at no point of time, was earmarked for the purpose of formation of park. It is specifically contended that as per the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan of 1995, the area wherein C.A. site No. 7 is situated, is classified as `Unclassified Zone'' and as per the Revised Master Plan 2015, it has been classified as `Residential Zone''. Therefore, it is substantiated that the allotment of C.A. site No. 7 made by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 is in order and the same is justifiable, and that there is no illegality in allotting the land in question as C.A. site in favour of respondent No. 2.

So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, along with the statement of objections, copy of the Revised Master Plan 2015 has been produced to demonstrate that the site allotted to it is not a park, but is situated in the residential zone. In addition to that, Google map is also produced to demonstrate that within a radius of 140 to 407 Meters from the location of the aforesaid C.A. site, four parks are available for the benefit of residents of Domlur. Therefore, the averment made in the so called public interest litigation to the effect that the property in question is the only lung space available for residents of Domlur was demonstrated to be false statement to the Court.

Having heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and on going through the material available on record, it is clear that, even according to the plan submitted by petitioner along with his application in I.A. I/2013, seeking amendment to the petition, the property in question is situated in ''Unclassified Zone'', as rightly stated by respondent No. 2 in its statement of objections. The attempt on the part of the petitioner to contend that the site in question is situated in `park zone'' is factually incorrect, misleading and clearly indicate that petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands. The Apex Court has, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , observed:

xxx

The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of the public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique considerations. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives, and try to bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busybodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

In light of the above observations of the Apex Court, the present petition is required to be dismissed with cost.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which the petitioner shall, within four weeks pay to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in equal proportion. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, I.A. I/2013 for amendment would not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.