MANJUNATH S. K. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of grant of temporary residential plan at Annexure-F dtd. 8/11/2022 in favour of the applicants therein. It is the contention of the petitioner that in a family partition that took place in the year 1967, survey No.25 was divided and allotted in favour of the respective members of the family. Thereafter, in a subsequent partition deed that took place on 29/9/1990, 1 acre and 37 guntas of land was allotted in favour of the petitioner and the said property is shown as Sy.No.25/1D of Shamanur Village, Davanagere Taluk, Davanagere District. However in the provisional Master Plan prepared by the Davanagere-Harihar Urban Development Authority a proposed road is shown on the land belonging to the petitioner. On the other hand, when the other members of the family who were allotted separate shares in Sy.No.25/3 and 25/4 approached the Development authority, the authority has sanctioned temporary plan as sought for in terms of the order dtd. 8/11/2022 at Annexure-F. The petitioner made a communication dtd. 8/8/2022 at Annexure-E to the Commissioner, Davanagere-Harihar Urban Development Authority seeking to cancel or recall the designation of road made in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner. A legal notice was also got issued on 15/11/2022 at Annexure-H. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the provisional Master Plan of Davanagere- Harihar Urban Development Authority and further direct the authorities to stop the road work that may be carried out in terms of the provisional Master Plan.

(2.) Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsels for the respondent - Davanagere-Harihar Urban Development Authority submit that the grievance of the petitioner is unfounded. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot find fault with the action of the respondent - Davanagere-Harihar Urban Development Authority in sanctioning the temporary plan as sought for by the relatives of the petitioner in respect of their lands. On the other hand, if the land belonging to the petitioner has been designated for formation of road, then in terms of the provisions contained in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the land has to be notified, acquired and then the road will be formed.

(3.) On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent - Davanagere- Harihar Urban Development Authority and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that if the petitioner is aggrieved of the designation of his property for formation of a road in the provisional Master Plan, then he may file objections for preparation of the final Master Plan. His objection is required to be considered in accordance with law. Even otherwise, if the competent authority i.e., planning authority is of the opinion that the alignment of the road cannot be deviated while considering the objections that could be filed by the petitioner and goes ahead finalising the Master Plan showing the road on the property belonging to the petitioner, then in terms of the Sec. 69 of the Act the planning authority may acquire the land designated for public purpose by agreement or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013 . In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded.