P. DAYANANDA PAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 AND THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

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 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. 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 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 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.

(2.) THE BDA has contested the petition and it is urged that though the petitioners had applied for sanction of building plans as on 30.12.2006 the same had been rejected as the majority of the lands in question fall within the valley zone and hence could not be granted for development, in terms of the Master Plan 2015. The petitioners having obtained conversion of the land user under the provisions of the KLR Act was not relevant in the present context. The petitioners were required to conform to the present Master Plan in respect of all prospective development. It is claimed by the BDA that the present Master Plan has been prepared by the Government of Karnataka in Collaboration with a French company, M/s Strategic Conseil et Ettndes, using satellite images and spot S(sic) images. While analyzing the said images of the Yelahanka area it became apparent that the area would fall under the valley zone having regard to the topography and location - given the parameters that were applicable in preparing the Master Plan 2015. The report prepared in respect of the Yelahanka - Byatarayanapura, City Municipal Council area in prompting the re -classification of the land was to the following effect : The predominant land use of the planning district is agricultural, which covers 43.3% of the area. Residential use covers 11.1% and industrial use 5%. The natural drainage system consisting of valleys running North -South between the Yelahanka and Puttenahalli is mostly preserved except for an area south of Yelahanka kere which is encroached by residential development. Areas in the north along Doddaballapur road are undergoing major transformation with building of large apartments. Within the large plantations beyond the urbanized areas, several small residential layouts are cropped up The observations were specifically taken into account to preserve the major valleys and lakes including the Allalasandra kere and Puttenahalli kere which are proposed as natural setting to prevent urban encroachment. By contrast conventional methods were used in the preparation of the Revised CDP, 1995 in surveying the lands using chain link survey and reconnaissance survey that was available then. This has been shown to be inaccurate and flawed by the advanced methods used in the preparation of the Master Plan 2015. The petitioners being granted any relief would result in defeating the object sought to be achieved in planned development. Hence it is sought that the petition be dismissed.