D, LAKKANNA SON OF LATE DURGAPPA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MULTI-STORIED BUILDING BANGALORE-560001, THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have raised the challenge to the 2nd respondent's endorsement, dated 3.12.2011 (Annexure -K). They have also prayed for issue of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to sanction the layout plan for the following lands viz., a. Sy. No. 26/2 measuring 1 acre 18.08 guntas b. Sy. No. 27/2 measuring 0 -10 guntas c. Sy. No. 27/2A measuring 0.32.08 guntas d. Sy. No. 27/2B measuring 0.28 -08 guntas e. Sy. No. 27/2A measuring 1.11.00 guntas f. Sy. No. 27/2B measuring 0 -04.08 guntas of Doddakannelli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk & g. Sy. No. 33/2 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas h. Sy. No. 33/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas i. Sy. No. 33/1 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas of chikkannelli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, totally measuring 11 acres 30 guntas. Sri Srivatsa, Sr. Advocate for the petitioners submits that the lands are already converted from agricultural into the residential lands. He submits that the lands in question are not the subject matter of any acquisition notification nor are they designated for any specific purpose in the master plan. In the master plan, and lands are shown as constituting the residential zone.

(2.) HE further submits that the 2nd respondent may refuse to sanction for layout only under the five circumstances enumerated in sub -section (6) of Section 32 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow: 6(1) Such sanction may be refused - (i) if the proposed street would conflict with any arrangements which have been made or which in the opinion of the authority is likely to be made for carrying out any general scheme of street improvement or other schemes of development or expansion by the authority; or (ii) if the proposed street does not conform to the provisions of the Act, rules and bye -laws referred to in sub -section (3); or (iii) if the proposed street is not designed so as to connect at one end with a street which is already open, or (iii -a) if the proposed extension or layout is on the land which is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the development scheme under this Act, and in respect of which a notification under sub -section (3) of Section 17 is already published, or (iv) if the layout in the opinion of the authority cannot be fitted with any existing or proposed expansion of development schemes of the authority.

(3.) THE learned, counsel submits that there is no notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act, in respect of the development scheme of the KC Reddy Layout. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 is not justified in refusing the sanction. He sought to draw support from the Apex Court judgment in the case of T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another, AIR 2007 SC 25 , wherein it is held that the valuable right could not be denied in the absence of a clear regulating statutory provision.