Writ Petition Nos. 7732-7734 of 2009. Case: Baba Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Bangalore International Airport and Anr.. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 7732-7734 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.S. Bhagwat, Adv. and For Respondents: S.G. Pandit, Adv. and Ashok Haranahalli, Adv. General |
| Judges | Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. |
| Issue | Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1965 - Section 95; Karnataka Town Planning and Country Act, 1964 - Sections 9, 10(1), 12, 13, 13(3), 14(1) and 14A; Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 |
| Judgement Date | December 16, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.
-
Petitioners have sought for a declaration that the Master Plan, 2021 dated 27.1.2009 and 29.1.2009 vide Annexures-'K' and 'K1', the Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent as per Annexure-'M' dated 27.1.2009 and the Gazette Notification dated 29.1.2009 vide Annexure-'N', as null and void in so far as they relate to the designation of the lands, bearing Survey Nos. 62, 65, 55, 3 acres in 64, 102/1, 103/1, 49, 104/1, 105/1, 104/3, 100, 50, 101/1, 2 3 and 102/2, totally measuring 41 acres 16 guntas, situated at Hegganahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, belonging to the Petitioners for agricultural use.
-
The State Government constituted Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Planning Authority' for short) on 12.1.1996 and the Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority was provisionally approved by the State Government and the same was published on 30th September 2004. The aforementioned lands were converted for non-agricultural purposes i.e., for residential purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue Act' for short) on 22.12.2004, 1.2.2005, 23.2.2005 and 30.3.2005. No Objection Certificate was issued by Karnataka Pollution Control Board. However, the application filed by the Petitioners for grant of approval for formation of residential layout was rejected by issuing endorsements dated 7.10.05 and 20.10.2005. The Petitioners made another application for grant of approval for formation of residential layout on 25.4.2006. The same also came to be rejected on 22.6.2006. Such orders of the rejection of the prayer of the Petitioners for formation of residential layout were questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7487/2006 and connected matters. The same came to be disposed of by observing thus:
Para-4: The Petitioners' applications for sanction of layout plan/industrial use were required to be considered in the light of the final Master Plan to be notified under the Act by the Bangalore International airport Planning Authority- the Planning Authority for the area in question constituted under the Act and not on the basis of the Provisional Outline Development Plan.
Para-5: Learned Advocate General submits that the orders impugned require a relook in accordance with the 'Master Plan' to be notified by the Planning Authority. According to the learned Advocate General, the orders impugned are unsustainable and if granted reasonable time, the authorities would reconsider the Petitioners' applications and consider the Petitioner's application in W.P. No. 2881/2006 in accordance with the master plan to be notified on or before 30-01-2009, and pass orders thereon.
Para-6: Recording the submission of the learned Advocate General, nothing further survives for consideration in these petitions and are accordingly disposed of. Time for compliance is fixed at 2 months from 30th January 2009.
-
The Master Plan, 2021 is approved by the 2nd Respondent designating the lands in question for agricultural purposes on 27.1.2009 as per Annexure-'M'. A Corrigendum was issued on 29th January 2009 to the Master Plan making certain clarifications as per Annexure-'N' on 29th January 2009. As aforementioned, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Respondent in designating the lands in question in the Master Plan for agricultural purposes.
-
It is contended by Sri M.S. Bhagwat. learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the provisional Master Plan dated 17.9.2004 cannot be enforced in law, inasmuch as, it is not a Master Plan in the eyes of law. According to him, only the Master Plan which is finally approved by the State Government is entitled to be enforced in law. The second contention of the, learned Counsel is that the Petitioners are discriminated by the Respondents in the matter of designating the lands in question for agricultural purposes, inasmuch as, the adjoining lands are designated for residential purposes.
-
Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned Counsel for the Petitioners elaborating the aforementioned contentions submitted that BIAAPA is constituted on 12.1.1996 and that therefore, the master Plan should have been prepared by the Planning Authority i.e., 2 Respondent herein within two years as mandated under Section 9 of Karnataka Town Planning & Country Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Planning Act' for short); that the provisional Master Plan was prepared and published after eight years by the Planning Authority; that the Master Plan was finally approved by the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial