JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners - the poor allotees of Hakku Patraas of small bits of land which they have given up on the assurance of being granted 'Transferable Development Rights' (hereafter TDR) are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 17/3/2022 issued by the Respondent - BDA (Annexure AD) whereby, the recommendation of the Respondent - BBMP for issuing the TDR Certificates to them has been negatived. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners insists that in view of the chequered history, this case should be taken up for hearing on a priority basis sine it involves the interest of poor persons.

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that: the impugned order is contrary to law, i.e., sec. 14B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; petitioners in recognition of their lawful occupancy of the land in question were issued individual Hakku Patraas and on being asked the same having been surrendered sans compensation, denial of TDR Certificate is unsustainable. What happened in earlier rounds of litigation i.e., in W.P.Nos.25898-26035/2019 & C.C.C.No.696/2020, coupled with the specific assurance of the concerned, further strengthen their case on estoppel & promissory estoppel qua the authorities; the grounds on which the impugned order is structured are demonstrably untrue and prima facie untenable. Respondents who answer the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution could not have given a rough deal to the petitioners; their action falls militantly short of fairness standards legitimately expected of them.

(3.) After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA; the answering Respondents namely, the BDA & BBMP are represented by their Panel Advocates. BDA has filed the Statement of Objections & Addl. Statement of Objections opposing the Writ Petition. Petitioners have filed their Rejoinder to the same. Learned Panel Advocates appearing for the authorities resist the Petition making vehement submission in justification of the impugned order, essentially contending that: grant of TDR is governed by statutory scheme; unless conditions of scheme are complied with, there cannot be justiciable claim for TDR certificates in the absence of strict compliance. Petitioners not being the 'owners' of the subject land, have no right to seek TDR Certificates. The Proviso to Sec. 14B of 1961 Act introduced by way of 2020 Amendment renders their claim legally untenable. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.