NARAYANAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29-6-2010 vide Annexure-K and the No Objection Certificate issued by the 3rd respondent dated 6-4-2010 vide Annexure-J. He has also sought for quashing the order passed by the 6th respondent dated 19-11-2010 vide Annexure-P4. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for. The lands bearing Sy. Nos. 14/7A and 14/7B situated at Govenahalli Village and the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 6/7A and 6/7B situated at Halanayakanahalli Village are the subject-matters of these writ petitions. The 5th respondent purchased an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas out of Sy. No. 14/7A and 15 guntas out of Sy. No. 14/7B situated at Govenahalli Village; so also he has purchased an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas out of Sy. No. 6/7A and 16 guntas out of Sy. No. 6/7B situated at Halanayakanahalli Village, under the registered sale deed dated 7-11-2006 from one Mr. Narasegowda. Petitioner claims to be the member of the joint family, of which Mr. Narasegowda is also a member. Petitioner filed O.S. No. 2562 of 2007 before the Civil Court (Senior Division), Bangalore claiming his share in the joint family properties including the petition schedule properties. According to the petitioner, Mr. Narasegowda has no exclusive right over the properties in question and consequently, he has no right to alienate the schedule properties treating the properties as his own. On the other hand the contention of the 5th respondent is that he purchased the above properties after taking into consideration the earlier partition deed entered into between the owners of the properties dated 15-12-1978 and the registered gift deed dated 28-5-1970 apart from mutation and revenue entries. Thus according to the 5th respondent, he is the exclusive owner of the petition schedule properties.

(2.) In the meanwhile, the 5th respondent started constructing factory and godown in the petition schedule properties. According to the petitioner, the properties are situated in greenbelt area and therefore the properties cannot be used for non-agricultural purposes. Petitioner relied upon the Notification -- Annexure-D relating to interim Master Plan of Nelamangala LPA-2021, issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 18-11-2003 to contend that the zone of about 10 kilometers radius around Tippagondanahalli Reservoir is declared as area of protection and so also to contend that a buffer of around two kilometers on either side of Arkavathi and Kumudvathi courses (within the catchment) are to be regulated for protecting the Tippagondanahalli Reservoir from further deterioration. The very notification reveals that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has taken the decision not to accord consent for any industry, as it is bound to change the surface contours and affect the catchment's drainage pattern. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has also recommended to the Government that the area identified by ISRO be declared as a sensitive zone under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also suggested to constitute a separate Authority for the conservation of Thippagondanahalli catchment area.

(3.) Nelamangala Planning Authority is one of the authorities responsible to oversee the implementation of master plan of Nelamangala. The No Objection Certificate is issued by the Nelamangala Planning Authority to the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-J, dated 6-4-2010 for converting the land bearing Sy. No. 14/7A to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas situated at Govenahalli Village and Sy. No. 6/7A to an extent of 20 guntas situated at Halanayakanahalli Village in favour of the 5th respondent to establish unit for service and repairs of farm machinery. Certain conditions are also imposed under the very No Objection/recommendation vide Annexure-J. The Deputy Commissioner by an order Annexure-K, dated 29-6-2010 granted the permission to convert the land bearing Sy. No. 14/7A of Govenahalli Village measuring 1 acre 6 guntas for non-agricultural purposes with a condition that the land should be utilised only for the unit of service and repair of farm machinery. Certain other conditions are also imposed. Based on such permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, it seems the 5th respondent has constructed the building and obtained the electricity connection also.