M.M. Basavana Gowda vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India requesting the Court to direct the Davangere Urban Development Authority to obey and abide by the order passed by the Government on 17.1.2000, (Annexure-''A'') whereby the layout was approved by Government and also direct the Davangere Urban Development Authority not to take any action for calling and allotment of sites and other works, as the same is contrary to the Government order and approved plan.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that layout plan was approved by the Government on 17.1.2000, but subsequently the respondents have prepared a modified plan and submitted it before the Government for its approval, but the same has been rejected by the Government and in spite of such rejection, respondents-authorities have proceeded to make a road without following the directions given by approving the layout plan with reservation of area for the SC/ST and weaker sections of the society and also for formation of Ambedkar Yojna. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the area required to be reserved for land bank is not reserved. Therefore, the work undertaken by the respondents is contrary to the plan and directions issued by the Government while approving the layout plan.

Per-contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that subsequently the authorities have submitted modified plan after taking opinion of technical experts and the Government has approved the same and it is as per the approval given on 17.10.2000 by the Director of Urban Development, Bangalore dated 17.1.2000. It is also contended that 10% of the total layout is reserved for SC/ST and weaker sections of the society and 10% is also reserved for land bank for Ambedkar Yojna. The allotment has been already made to some of the allottees and allottees are already put into possession and they have made constructions over the respective areas allotted to them. Now the work of formation of road is in progress and major portion of the road has also been already laid. Hence, the petition was prayed to be rejected.

A perusal of the record show that, though at the earliest point of time modified plan was not approved by the Government, subsequently, the respondent-authorities, after taking opinion of the technical experts, have again submitted the plan before the Government showing the area reserved for SC/ST and also for the land bank area and the Government has approved the same. The respondent No. 3 in the objection statement referred to the Government orders and also the letters issued by the concerned department. The petitioner has not challenged the subsequent orders passed by the Government giving approval to the modified layout plan. Until and unless he challenges those subsequent orders of the Government, he cannot maintain this petition.

The antecedents of the petitioner shows that he is running a printing press, but as regards his service to the public at large and filing the petitions in public interest, he has not produced any other material before the Court, except making oral statement in the petition that he is an activist doing social service in the interest of public, which clearly shows that petition is filed at the instigation of some persons and there is no public interest involved in this petition. Petitioner has utterly failed to show that petition is filed in the public interest.

Therefore, we do not see any merit in the petition even as the modifications made by the respondents-authorities are supported by Government orders. Hence, petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which the petitioner shall pay to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in equal proportion, within a period of one month.