P DAYANANDA PAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is said to be an industrialist and a real estate developer. The second petitioner is an educational institution and claim as the owners of the properties which are the subject matter of this petition. The properties are lands in survey no. 62,67,68/1,68/2, 68/3, 70/1, 70/2, 71, 72, 73/1, 73/2B, 73/3, 74, 87, 88/1, 88/2, 89,91, 92 and 95 all of Yelahanka village, Bangalore North Taluk as well as lands in Survey no.18/1, 18/2, 19/2, 19/1-A and 20 of Ammanikere village, Bangalore north Taluk- totally measuring 23 acres 7 guntas. Apart from these lands, the petitioners claim that they also own other lands in the vicinity. It is the case of the petitioners that these lands were declared as being in the residential zone under the Comprehensive Development Plan, 1995 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the CDP, 1995', for brevity) in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the KTCP Act' for brevity). It is stated that the petitioners had purchased the lands with the intention of putting up residential 4 buildings and had sought conversion of the land user through the competent authority. Such permission was granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Hereinafter referred to as ' the KLR Act' for brevity) - in January 2005. The details of such conversion orders by the competent authority in respect of the several parcels of land are furnished under Annexure -D to the writ petition. It is also stated that several items of land purchased by the second petitioner had already been converted for non-agricultural residential user even before the purchase.

(2.) THE Planning Authority had notified the Draft Master Plan, 2015. It was found that the aforementioned lands were re- classified as "Valley Zone" under the same. The petitioners had immediately filed their objections to the draft Master Plan to state that the petitioners had already obtained permission for conversion of the lands in question and further that there were many residential complexes already in existence in the area, belonging to both public and private bodies. The petitioners had raised several 5 other issues in the said objections. The respondents however, proceeded to notify the Master Plan with further changes, which were again detrimental to the petitioners. The consequence of the change in classification of the lands as "valley zone " is that the same can be used only for establishing sewerage treatment and water treatment plants, roads, pathways, formation of drains, culverts, bridges, parks and open spaces and no fresh permission can be accorded for development. It was however, clarified in the Master Plan that any land falling within the valley zone for which permission had been accorded for development, either by the BDA or the Government, no fresh permission would be required pursuant to the change in classification in the revised Master Plan, 2015. It is therefore the petitioners' case that the change of land user in terms of the CDP, 1995 had been accorded and that the petitioners had been enabled to obtain sanction of building plans even from the year 2005,the mere fact that the petitioners had not 6 proceeded to construct buildings as on the date of re-classification, the permission granted earlier does not stand nullified but on the other hand stands saved, in the light of the clarification in the Master Plan, 2015 itself. It is contended that the change in classification is without reference to the ground realities and completely inconsistent with the CDP 1995 and hence irrational and unreasonable. In the light of the above the petitioners' application for sanction of building plans having been rejected on the ground that the Master plan,2015 does not provide for any development on the said lands, the present petition is filed.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate, Shri Udaya Holla, would contend that there is no dispute that the user of the lands in question were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural - residential use in accordance with law. In other words, the conversion was in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan in vogue at the relevant point of time, in which event there is no violation of the provisions of the KTCP, in the competent authority having permitted the conversion in terms of Section 95 of the KLR Act. And the revised Master Plan 2015 specifically saves any such permission for change of land user, granted in consonance with the CDP at the relevant time, prior to the present Master plan coming into force. Attention is drawn to Volume 3 of the Master Plan 2015, clause 4.12.2 (ii) (v), in this regard. It is also contended that any restriction imposed by the planning law, though in public interest should be strictly 10 construed, because they make inroads into the rights of private persons to carry on business or construction. The learned Senior Advocate would also contend that though land belonging to private persons can be included in the development plan, but unless the land is acquired by the State or the local authority, such development plan cannot be implemented and the land owner cannot be deprived from using the private property for any other purpose. Reliance is placed on the following authorities for the above propositions:- 1. Sri Krishnapur Mutt, Udupi vs. N.Vijayendra Shetty and another, 1992 (3) Kar.LJ 326, 2. Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2008)4 SCC 144, 3. Raju S Jethmalani and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(11) SCC 222