AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to consider the representation at Annexure-L dated 30.07.2011 and issue appropriate direction to respondent No. 3 to modify and redraw the Master Plan indicating the area, extent left out in Sy. No. 37/2(37/3) which belong to the petitioners.
The undisputed facts are that in respect of the total extent of 3 acres 17 guntas claimed to be belonging to the petitioners in Sy. No. 37/2, notifications were issued to acquire a portion of the said property for formation of the road. In that regard, through the notifications at Annexures-D and E, the total extent of 1 acre 15 guntas has been acquired. In that view, the petitioners are entitled to the ownership in respect of the remaining 2 acres 2 guntas. The petitioners thus being the owners of the remaining extent of 2 acres 2 guntas seeks utilization of the land for the purpose of construction.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though only an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas had been acquired in accordance with law, respondents No. 1 to 3 are seeking to utilize the entire extent of the property inasmuch as the remaining extent of the property has also been included in the Master Plan, a reference to which is made by referring to the enclosure to Annexure-J. It is contended that even though the neighbouring property owners are permitted to use their lands, the land of the petitioners is shown as falling within the acquired property as having been included in the Master Plan. It is in that regard, the petitioners are stated to have made representation as at Annexure-L to exclude the same by the modifying the plan.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. The fact that only an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas belonging to the petitioners has been acquired is not seriously in dispute. The contention however is that the Master Plan has been prepared as contemplated u/s 13 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (for short the ''Act''). In such Master Plan, the remaining extent of the property has been included with regard to zoning pattern of the land. In such circumstance, it is contended that if at all the land included within the Master Plan is to be utilized by the petitioners for the purpose for which it is shown or for a different purpose, the appropriate procedure as contemplated in law is required to be followed i.e., to seek for approval or to seek for conversion of the same for using it for a different purpose which would be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
To consider these aspects of the matter, the very document produced by the petitioners at Annexures-G and J would set at rest the apprehension of the petitioners. Vide endorsement dated 26.02.2007 at Annexure-G, issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB (BMICP), the actual extent of 1 acre 15 guntas being acquired from the total extent of 3 acres 17 guntas in Sy. No. 37/2 has been referred to and it has been stated that the remaining extent has not been acquired. This would disclose that the petitioners remain to be the owners in respect of the remaining extent of 2 acre 2 guntas.
Further, the communication dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure-J) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner would indicate that respondent No. 3 has intimated that the request of the petitioners for conversion of 1 acre 38 guntas from agricultural purpose could be considered subject to the extent of 27 05 guntas be treated as buffer zone. The said communication would also indicate that the ''no objection'' be obtained from KIADB (BMICP) relating to the remaining extent not being acquired. As already noticed, Annexure-G dated 26.02.2007 indicates this aspect and the same satisfies the said requirement. But, the same is to be produced by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner for consideration.
In such circumstance, when it is clear that the remaining extent of the property measuring 2 acres 2 guntas to which the petitioners claim right is clarified as not having been acquired but is only included in the Master Plan which has been formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the nature of the grievance made through the representation at Annexure-L would not arise for consideration at this juncture. However, it is made clear that in view of the present position clarified by this Court with regard to the ownership of the property and the petitioners will comply the requirement of law as contemplated under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of utilization of the land. To obtain sanctions for construction, the petitioners would file necessary applications to the concerned authorities after the Deputy Commissioner processes the applications for conversion keeping in view the clearances that has been accorded by the competent authorities that the extent of 2 acres 2 guntas belong to the petitioners and that there is no objection for conversion being considered by the Deputy Commissioner.
Reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority in terms of the above clarifications, these petitions stand disposed of.