SADASHIVNAGAR YOUTH ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent Housing Board prepared, developed and executed a scheme called " Yelahanka Upanagara" in the year 1998 in an area of 659 acres. In this land, residential, commercial and industrial sites, parks, open spaces, civic amenity sites, roads etc were provided. Site No. 11 in 5th Phase of the said scheme is a civic amenity site and the same was allotted in favour of petitioner on 5.6.2003. On 27.04.2004 a conditional sale deed was executed in favour of me petitioner. The possession of the site was delivered in 27.07.2004. The khata of the site in question also stands in the name of petitioner and obtained sanctioned plan and license. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced the construction and the building reached roof level of the basement floor and invested a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. At that time, fourth respondent issued a letter on 25.08.2009 directing the petitioner to stop the construction. In the said letter it is stated that the site in question is reserved for park. Shocked by this letter the petitioner came to know that when the second respondent housing board submitted a modified plan for approval and the same was granted on 5.5.2005 subject to the condition that the modified plan is approved in accordance with the master plan of 2015 for Bangalore. In this master plan the site in question and four other sites are shown as park area. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 6.6.2009 passed by the third respondent and the letter dated 23.06.2009, Annexure -A respectively and also to quash the letter dated 9.7.2009, Annexure -B and letter dated 25.08.2009, Annexure -C. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that second respondent Board formed a scheme in the year 1998 in an area of 659 Acres. In this area site no. 11 which is in question was ear marked as civic amenity site and the same was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2003. On the basis of allotment letter, registered sale deed, possession certificate and sanctioned plan and license was issued and the petitioner commenced the construction and invested a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. At that time, the impugned letter, Annexure -A was issued directing the petitioner to stop the construction activity. This letter is based on a resolution passed by the third respondent BDA on 6.6.2009. Before passing the resolution the petitioner was not heard and as such the same is opposed to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the revised master plan of 2015 was approved by the Government on 25.06.2007 and the same is prospective in nature. The Supreme Court in T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another, AIR 2007 SC 25 it is held as under: It is, thus, now well -settled law that an application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law' applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time. In the instant case the modified plan of the second respondent was approved by the third respondent BDA vide resolution dated 5.5.2005. The revised master plan was approved by the Government on 25.06.2007. Therefore, the revised master plan cannot be imposed on the petitioner retrospectively. On this ground the impugned resolution and the orders are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER