VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 7.5.2011 issued by respondent No. 4 as per Annexure-A and for a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to incorporate necessary modifications in the comprehensive development plan, Annexure-K and to rectify the modified plan, Annexure-M1 and for other reliefs. Petitioner is an educational trust. Petitioner Trust was owning certain lands in Alanahalli and Nadanahalli villages of Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The lands of petitioner Trust and other lands came to be notified for acquisition for the benefit of third respondent. Petitioner being aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings challenged the same before this court in W.P. No. 206/2001 and connected matters. During the pendency of the writ petition there came to be a settlement between the parties and consequently a joint memo was filed before this court. In terms of the joint memo the writ petition came to be disposed of. In terms of the joint memo, sy. No. 15 measuring 04 acres situated at Nadanahalli village came to be transferred to the petitioner. Accordingly, the khata also came to be transferred to the name of the petitioner and the same is the subject matter of this writ petition. In the land in question in sy. No. 15 and the adjacent land in sy. No. 16, the petitioner Trust intended to develop the same as educational complex. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for a sanctioned plan to the third respondent on 23.01.2006. The third respondent issued an endorsement on 22.02.2006 as per Annexure-F directing the petitioner to leave 80 feet road as specified in the comprehensive development plan and to resubmit the plan. Petitioner being not happy with the endorsement, Annexure-F submitted a reply on 15.03.2006 stating that there is no need to leave 80 feet road in their plan and requested to sanction the plan without insisting on leaving 80 feet road. The respondents by considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed a resolution on 15.04.2006, Annexure-H approving the plan submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently on 31.05.2006 the sanctioned plan and commencement certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-H1 and H2. Further the petitioner applied to the first respondent for change of land use from residential zone to educational purpose. The first respondent vide order dated 27.05.2008 gave approval for change of land use as per Annexure-J subject to certain conditions and payment of certain charges etc. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the necessary charges. As per the approved plan, petitioner started construction. During the course of construction the petitioner found the need for slight modification of the construction. Accordingly petitioner gave a letter on 22.07.2009 with modified plan as per Annexure-M and M1 requesting the third respondent to approve the modified plan. Since there was delay on the part of the third respondent in considering the request of petitioner for approval of modified plan, petitioner addressed a reminder on 20.11.2009, Annexure-Q. On 13.3.2010 the third respondent issued an endorsement to incorporate 80 feet road in the modified plan in terms of comprehensive development plan and also to comply certain other requirements. Accordingly the petitioner complied all other requirements and requested the respondents to approve the modified plan without insisting on incorporating 80 feet road. Again the fourth respondent issued the impugned endorsement on 07.05.2011 as per Annexure-A rejecting the request of petitioner and insisting to incorporate 80 feet road in the modified plan. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the compromise in W.P No. 206/2001 and connected matters no condition is imposed to reserve 80 feet road in the lands in question and therefore the respondents are now not entitled to insist to leave 80 feet road in the lands in question. This contention is unacceptable to me. The compromise between the parties in W.P. No. 206/2001 and connected matters is always subject to Law, Rules and Regulations and the same cannot be altered by consent of the parties. Therefore even in the absence of any such clause in the compromise between the parties in W.P. No. 206/2001 and connected matters it is always open for the respondents to insist upon implementation of legal requirement as per Regulation.