MANTRI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/S.Walden Properties Private Limited is the owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.15/ to 30/3 of Ramagondanahalli Village and Sy.Nos.348 and 385 of Ammani Bellandur Khane Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, totally measuring 49 acres 8 guntas. The petitioner is a registered Joint Agreement Holder and the Power of Attorney for developing the aforementioned lands. The joint development agreement entered into between the petitioner and M/s.Walden Properties Private Limited is found at Annexure-A to the writ petition. The lands are converted for residential use pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as the lands were designated for residential use in the Comprehensive Development Plan (Master Plan) of Bangalore City. Thereafter the petitioner applied for sanction of development plan by filing an application dated 14.1.2011. The second respondent-BDA has considered the request and issued an endorsement at Annexure-B, dated 13.10.2011 intimating the petitioner that the lands in question are proposed to be acquired for formation of D.Devaraj Urs Layout, which has been approved by the first respondent-State of Karnataka and that therefore the application of the petitioner for sanctioning the Layout Development Plan cannot be granted at this stage. The said endorsement is called in question in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the State Government has approved the proposal of the project of the second respondent to form D.Devaraj Urs Layout by utilizing the petition properties along with the other properties as far back as on 28.2.2009. It is also not in dispute that till this day, no notification is issued by the respondents proposing to acquire the lands for formation of D.Devaraj Urs Layout either under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or Bangalore Development Act. Based on these undisputed facts, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-B with a contention that the reasoning assigned by respondent No. 2 in the endorsement at Annexure-B, is wholly unjustified, illegal and without authority of law. According to the petitioner, its valuable rights are adversely affected by the arbitrary decision of the second respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to sanction the Development Plan in respect of the lands owned by it, measuring 49 acres 8 guntas.

(2.) Sri Srinivas Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues in support of the averments made in the writ petition by contending that neither acquisition notifications are issued nor scheme is framed or finalized.

(3.) Sri B.V.Shankarnarayana Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the BDA opposed the writ petition by contending that the housing project to be formed by the petitioner after obtaining sanctioned plan may not fit in the proposed D.Devaraj Urs Layout to be formed by the second respondent; since the formation of D.Devaraj Urs Layout is in the public interest, the petitioner cannot compel the respondents to get his plan sanctioned; that the petitioner has to wait for some more period for the authorities of the State to make arrangements for formation of D.Devaraj Urs Layout. He draws the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 32(6)(iii-a) and Section 32(6)(iv) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('BDA Act' for short) in support of his contention.