SAAGAM REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.2 to issue requisite direction for release of 40% of the sites that were withheld at the time of sanction of the plan to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner claims that he had applied for sanction of a plan to form a residential layout named "Sindhu Nagar" in the land comprised in Sy. Nos.51, 55/1 and 63 and situate at Muskam village, Robertsonpet Hobli, K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District, which will henceforth be referred to as 'the layout'. The respondent No.2 being the competent authority had granted sanction of a layout plan on 6/3/2010. As provided under Sec. 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the respondent No.2 had not released 40% of the sites and had withheld them in anticipation of the petitioner completing the layout in all respects. The petitioner contends that even after the layout was completed in all respects, the respondent No.2 failed to release 40% of the sites withheld. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation on 3/9/2020 requesting the respondent No.2 to release the sites. The respondent No.2 in terms of a letter dtd. 1/10/2020, requested the petitioner to submit Work Completion Certificate/s from the concerned Authorities/Departments in proof of the completion of the work in the layout. The petitioner in terms of the letter dtd. 4/12/2020 (Annexure 'K' to the petition) replied that it had applied to the concerned Authorities/Departments for issue of Work Completion Certificates and had enclosed therewith the Work Completion Certificate dtd. 27/11/2020 issued by the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited. However, the respondent No.2 slept over the matter despite unending visits of the petitioner to the office of the respondent No.2 which prompted the petitioner to cause a notice dtd. 21/8/2021. Since the respondent No.2 has not budged from its position, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for an appropriate direction.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel who represented the petitioner submitted that the layout is formed as per the plan sanctioned which is based on the Master plan approved by the State Government. Therefore, he submits that the respondent No.2 is bound to inspect the layout in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter release the sites that are withheld. He further submitted that the assertions now made by the respondent No.2 in the statement of objections are not found in the impugned Order and therefore, the same cannot be considered.