Mrs. K. Sayirani vs The Government of Karnataka and The Commissioner Bangalore Development Authority

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing is considered for final disposal. The Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 30194/2012. The learned Counsel Shri K.M. Prakash is directed to take notice for respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 46849/2012. These writ petitions are disposed of by a common order, having regard to the circumstances in each of these petitions being almost identical. In W.P. No. 46849/2012, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing survey Nos. 44/1, 46/3, 47 and 49 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas, 1 acre 20 guntas, 8 acres 10 guntas, apart from 20 guntas of kharab of Chikkanayakanahalli village, Varthur hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, respectively. The petitioner has produced RTC extracts, mutation register extracts in respect of the properties to demonstrate that the petitioner is indeed in possession and the absolute owner of the said lands. The petitioner is said to be desirous of developing the subject property into a residential layout and had applied to the competent authority seeking change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. The said authority namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District, on compliance of statutory requirements including the payment of prescribed fee had granted approval for change of land use of the subject property for non-agricultural purposes vide Official Memorandum dated 10.11.2008 in respect of these lands bearing No. ALN(EVH)SR/351/2007-2008 in respect of land in survey No. 44/1 and survey No. 46/3, ALN(EVH)SP/352/2007-2008 in respect of land in survey No. 49 and survey No. 3 and ALN(EVH)SR/353/2007-2008 in respect of land in survey No. 47. Thereafter, in pursuance of the same, the petitioner had made an application seeking approval of the residential layout plan to the second respondent namely, the Bangalore Development Authority duly acknowledged the application. But has issued an endorsement dated 03.10.2012 claiming that though the property has not been notified for any purpose, however, there is a proposal to notify the land for the formation of a residential layout known as ''K.C. Reddy Layout'' and it is in this circumstance that the petitioner''s application seeking sanction of the plan is kept in abeyance and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

In W.P. No. 30194/2012 and W.P. Nos. 34344-34357/2012, the petitioners are 14 in number and claim as the absolute owners of the land bearing survey No. 50 measuring 9 acres and 39 guntas of Chikkanayakanahalli village, Varthur hobli, Bangalore East taluk, Bangalore District. The petitioner No. 15 is a partnership firm involved in real estate and development of lands. The revenue records are said to be in the joint names of petitioners 1 to 14. They are also the owners of land bearing survey No. 112 measuring 4 acres, survey No. 113 measuring 4 acres, survey No. 114 measuring 4 acres and survey No. 115 measuring 4 acres and 2 guntas at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal taluk, Bangalore District. The same are said to be adjacent to the above properties and form one contiguous block. The petitioners claim that they are desirous of developing the properties in question along with petitioner No. 15 and had entered into the joint development agreement duly registered on 29.11.2010 and pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner No. 15 who is authorised to take up further steps in the process had approached the competent authority seeking conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes which is said to be granted after completion of the formalities vide Official Memorandum dated 05.01.2011. Thereafter, petitioner No. 15 had made an application dated 09.01.2012 to the respondent No. 2 seeking approval of a proposed layout plan which has been denied on the ground that though the lands have not been notified for any acquisition, it is proposed to acquire the same for the purposes of formation of a residential layout known as ''K.C. Reddy Layout''. It is in that background that the second of these petitions is also filed. Since the same Counsel appears for the petitioners in these two petitions, at his request the matters have been clubbed together and hence, this common order.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court in identical circumstances in W.P. No. 34859/2012 by an order dated 10.12.2012 has allowed the petitions with reference to Section 32 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and having regard to the tenor of the said provision, the petitioners application could not have been turned down as the Apex Court in the case of T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another, has held that the valuable right of the owners of the land could not be denied in the absence of a clear regulatory provision and this Court had applied the said ratio in an earlier decision in writ petition in W.P. Nos. 9219-9221/2012 dated 21.11.2012. It is in the light of these consistent views taken by this Court following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in T. Vijayalakshmi and others, the present petitions are allowed and therefore, notwithstanding any proposal by the Bangalore Development Authority to form layout including the lands of the petitioners, this would not be a valid reason to postpone or deny the consideration of the petitioners application for sanction of plan when the law requires the same to be processed within the time frame. In any event, it is at the petitioners risk that any such development would take place, notwithstanding the proposal of a housing layout by the Bangalore Development Authority in the future. When the petitioners are prepared to take such a risk, it is not for the Bangalore Development Authority or the State Government to advise the petitioners as to the manner in which they shall utilize their property by putting forth a reason that would not be tenable in law instead of processing the plan of the proposed development by the petitioners in these two cases. Therefore, the respondents are directed to expedite the consideration of the plan submitted by the petitioners for sanction in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.