SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The learned Senior Advocate, Shri Madhusudan R. Naik, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the BDA has no power or jurisdiction to impose a condition as regards the period of lease and to claim lease rentals under the RMP 2015 while acting in its capacity as the Planning Authority under the KTCP Act. Therefore, the impugned conditions are illegal and without jurisdiction. Attention is drawn to Regulation 7.1.2 of RMP 2015 which reads as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the BDA on the other hand contends that it is not in dispute as to the petitioners having executed the Relinquishment Deeds in respect of the civic amenity areas and open spaces and park areas. The BDA being the Planning Authority under the provisions of the KTCP Act and having framed the RMP 2015, duly approved by the State Government, is also not in dispute. RMP 2015 provides for the mode of disposal of the civic amenity sites. Clause 7.1 of the RMP 2015, provides for 10% of the land reserved for parks and open spaces. The open spaces and parks relinquished in favour of the authority free of cost may be allowed to be maintained by the local residents' association, if the authority so decides. It is contended that the RMP 2015, is only a notification. The petitioners cannot seek any benefit under the same. On the civic amenities, open spaces and park areas vesting with the BDA by virtue of the same having been relinquished in its favour it will necessarily have to follow the procedure prescribed under the 1989 Rules which govern the field as regards the manner in which the civic amenity sites shall be allotted, and would override any notification issued under the KTCP Act. Even the notification issued under the KTCP Act contemplates that the mode of handing over shall be decided by the authority. This affords adequate discretion to the authority to prescribe modalities of handing over of the same. The letters of allotment of the civic amenity sites that have been issued to the petitioners, are not issued under the provisions of the RMP 2015 but they are issued under the provisions of the 1989 Rules. It is not incumbent on the authority to apply the RMP 2015 or the provisions of the KTCP Act for purposes of collection of the lease amounts. Hence, it is contended that the petitions lack merit. It is incidentally also canvassed that the BDA Act defines civic amenity which may be allotted in accordance with the provisions of the allotment of sites rules, which contemplates the imposition of conditions in terms of the lease deed. So also, the 1989 Rules provide for allotment and prescribes the eligibility criteria and the selection of an institution for leasing out the civic amenity sites. Therefore, when the 1989 Rules continue to remain on the statute book, the authority is enabled to invoke the same in exercise of its power thereunder.