K.GOPALAGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court calling in question resolution dtd. 12/7/2017 by which the 3rd respondent/ Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority ('the Planning Authority' for short) refused to consider the request of the petitioners, for change of alignment to the tune of 30 meters in the Master Plan concerning road that passes through the lands of the petitioners and have also sought for quashment of endorsements dtd. 20/5/2018 (20/6/2018)(Annex - T, T1) and 25/7/2018 which communicate the said resolution. The petitioners further seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to change the alignment passing through certain villages in which the lands of the petitioners situate.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane are as follows: The 1st petitioner claims to be owner of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.10/3 which is now renumbered as Sy.No.10/9 in Tharabanahlli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengalore North Taluk now Yelahanka Taluk in Bangalore Urban District. The 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of land measuring 1 acre and 32 guntas in Sy.No.15 of the same village. The petitioners aver that the village map of Tharabanahlli Village in 1919 displayed existence of village road formed in lands in Sy. Nos. 9, 12, 15, 17 and 21 of Tharabanahalli Village. It is claimed that on 13/9/2004 certain developers having their lands in Sy.Nos. 32, 33, 34 and 35 of Navarathna Agarahara and lands in Sy.Nos. 12 and 9 of Tharabanahlli Village and owing to the development of these lands at the behest of those developers the alignment of road was changed.

(3.) The 1st petitioner after purchase of land approaches the Planning authority for the purpose of conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. It is the averment that the 1st petitioner was notified at that point in time that Sy.No.10 of Tharabanahlli Village was earmarked for public and semi-public purpose and not for residential purposes. The 1st petitioner claims to have gone through the master plan and learnt that entire 1 acre in Sy.No.10/3 which is now renumbered as 10/9 of Tharabanahlli Village was proposed to be used for formation of road in the master plan. It is the averment that the petitioner was shocked by such revelation. The 1st petitioner claims that he was not aware of any master plan that was brought into force and the property was earmarked for formation of a road in the master plan. The 1st petitioner was informed that the Planning Authority had approved the interim master plan on 13/9/2014, objections were called for and the final master plan was approved five years thereafter on 29/1/2009. The 1st petitioner claims to be unaware of all these factors.