SHIVARAM JAYAVANT SIDDARKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner purchased the land bearing survey No. 822 measuring seven guntas in baad ii village in the year 1972. After sometime he applied for the sanction of a building plan with an intention to put up the construction on the land. On 4-10-1985 petitioner was notified that the land in question was reserved for nursery school and playground as per the outline development plan (hereinafter referred to as odp) for karwar. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for permission to put up the construction. Petitioner also has asserted in the writ petition that the proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka town and country planning Act, 1969 ('the act' for short) has not been taken. The petitioner also has produced a copy of the notice issued by him to the respondent on 30-10-1985, under Section 69. In the notice he has stated that if the land is not acquired as provided under Section 69, the petitioner intends to obtain the permission to construct the house.

(2.) the writ petition was filed on 25-8-1988. In the statement of objection filed on 23-6-1993, the first respondent has stated that outline development plan covering this area was finalised and approved on 14-10-1985 and comprehensive development plan (shortly called the 'cdp') is yet to be prepared. But the learned government pleader submitted before me that it was actually cdp that was published on 14-10-1985. The objection statement further states that land acquisition proceedings under Section 69 could be initiated at any time upto 13-10-1990; however, no such proceedings were initiated. The owner of the land shall have to serve a notice under Section 69 and if no step is taken to acquire the land, the reservation of the land lapses. The writ petition was filed in the year 1988. The writ petition is attacked as premature by the learned government pleader. According to the learned government pleader till the lapse of the period ending with 13-10-1990 and the period contemplated by Section 68(2) for the issuance of notice, the petitioner cannot seek any relief. The earlier notice issued in the year 1985 cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner at all.

(3.) the respondents have relied on the language used in Section 69(2) to justify their inaction. The learned government pleader has relied on the words used in the section. But this court can take note of the subsequent events and the lapse of time. For nearly seven and half years the respondents have not taken any action after the publication of the cdp. The petitioner has made his intention quite plain by issuing a notice in the year 1985 itself that he requires the site for construction of house, unless the land is acquired under Section 69(2). The petitioner also has shown his intention by filing this writ petition. The respondents are perfectly aware of the pendency of the writ petition. In fact the petitioner has been agitating for the relief all these years. If actually there was an intention to acquire the land under Section 69(2) nothing prevented the respondents to issue a preliminary notification to acquire the same as provided under Section 69(2). The present submission is highly technical ignoring the realities of the life.