GANESH S/O. JOTIBA OULKAR Vs. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BELGUAM BY ITS COMMISSIONER, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND THE STATS OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition, which has been styled as cause in public interest. It has been filed by the Petitioner to assail, firstly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, dated 12.12.2006, by which R.S. No. 219 of Jakkeri Honda, Belgaum, measuring 2 acres 10 guntas has been handed over to the Karnataka Housing Board. Secondly, the petitioner assails the purpose for which the land is to be utilized. Out of the aforesaid land, 62010 Sq.it. of land has been reserved for a housing project to be constructed by the Karnataka Housing Board, whereas, 3600 Sq.ft. of land has been earmarked for constructing quarters/flats for the staff of the Revenue Department.

(2.) IN addition to the aforesaid, the Petitioner has also assailed the approval granted by the Commissioner. Belgaum Urban Development Authority on 24.07.2008, approving the layout plan in respect of RS No. 219.

(3.) BASED on the mandate of Section 12 extracted herein -above, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that R.S. No. 219 of Jakkeri Honda, Belgaum, was earmarked as a public open place, the same therefore falls (in so far as the master plan is concerned) under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that once an area has been earmarked as public open space in the master plan, it cannot be used for any other purpose whatsoever. In order to substantiate the instant contention, learned Counsel has also placed reliance on clause(d) of Section 12(1), which provides, areas earmarked for future development and expansion. It is submitted, that the contemplated activity could only have been, carried out in land falling under Section 12(1)(d) of the 1961 Act. The project under reference emerging out of the impugned orders dated 12.12.2006 and 24.07.2008, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, being in the nature of future development and expansion, refer to use of land for the said purpose could be only out of such land, as had been earmarked under Section 12(1)(d) of the 1961 of the Act.