S N CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE S. N. Chandrashekar and another claiming to be residents of 10th Main, V Block of Jayanagar, Bangalore have filed this public interest litigation. It is stated that the Karnataka Housing Board formed V Block, Jayanagar sometime in 1962 and after formation, houses were constructed and allotted to general public of middle income group for residential purpose. The entire V Block of Jayanagar is shown as a residential Zone in the Comprehensive Development Plan prepared by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'the BDA' ). The petitioners were allotted houses bearing Nos. 282-D and 281-D respectively. The premises bearing No. 585 was allotted in favour of one k. V. Ramachandra and a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 19-10-1968. After the expiry of the 25 years lease period, a sale deed was executed in favour of K. V. Ramachandra on 10-12-1994 on the condition that the premises should be exclusively used for residential purpose only. The 6th respondent purchased the said premises from KV. Ramachandra under a registered sale deed dated 24-8-1998 and made an application to the BDA for conversion of the land use from residential to commercial. On the recommendation made by the BDA, the government in exercise of its power under Section 14-A of the karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the act'), accorded sanction for change of land use vide order dated 7-10-1999. The BDA, pursuant to the sanction of the Government issued confirmatory letter dated 10-12-1999 subject to conditions of obtaining necessary building plan approved by the Corporation and providing for parking of vehicles in the building. The 6th respondent without obtaining the licence from the Corporation started his restaurant. Some of the residents of the locality made a representation dated 4-1-2000 to the Medical Health Officer. The 6th respondent submitted an application dated 17-1-2000 for grant of licence and the Corporation by its endorsement dated 22-2-2000 informed him that his application would be considered after the construction of the building in accordance with the conditions laid down by the BDA in its order dated 10-12-1999. So also, the Medical Officer issued an endorsement dated 20-3-2000 to one of the residents of the locality informing that issue of licence to the 6th respondent will be considered only if he fulfils the conditions laid down by the BDA. The 6th respondent without fulfilling the conditions, made one more application on 25-2-2000 for grant of licence and thereafter had filed W. P. No. 11139 of 2000 wherein the Corporation was directed to consider his application for grant of licence within six weeks. The 6th respondent obtained building licence on 12-5-2000 and modified plan on 19-8-2000. However, the 6th respondent was granted licence to run the restaurant till 31-3-2002. Aggrieved by the notification dated 4-8-1999 some of the residents of the locality filed public interest litigation in W. P. No. 9078 of 2001 which is pending. In the meanwhile, the Corporation by its notice dated 20-12-2001 called upon the 6th respondent to show cause as to why the deviation made from the sanctioned plan should not be removed. As the 6th respondent failed to remove the deviated portions, the Corporation by its notice dated 6-1-2002 authorised the Executive Engineer to give effect to the confirmatory order by removing the deviated portions. Aggrieved by this, the 6th respondent approached the Standing Committee for Appeals. The Standing Committee for Appeals renewed the Hotel licence. As running of the hotel caused nuisance, a representation dated 12-1-2002 was made by the Ladies Association of the locality and another representation dated 19-1-2002 was made by the general public of that locality. Since, these aspects were not considered in earlier PIL petitions, this petition has been filed.

(2.) IN reply to the notice, the 6th respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections denying allegations made in the petition. It is stated that no public interest is involved rather the petition being filed in personal interest, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. On merits it is stated that association had given its consent vide letter dated 13-4-1999 for change of user of the property and for establishing a vegetarian restaurant at his property bearing No. 585. It is also stated that some of the members who were inimically disposed towards the respondents formed an Association in the name of Jayanagar V Block, 10th Main Residents Welfare Association and nothing has been shown whether the Association is duly registered or not and as such the petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that earlier PILs on the same cause of action have been dismissed by this Court.

(3.) THE main contention of Sri Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that change of land use is not permissible; that the proceedings of the Standing Committee for Appeals to the extent of renewing the licence is without jurisdiction and the purchase of premises, which is exclusively for residential purpose, and thereafter seeking conversion of it for a commercial purpose is not permissible. He also submits that the 6th respondent cannot have better right and title than the original allottee KV. Ramachandra and the principle enunciated in Shanta v Commissioner, Corporation of the City of bangalore, is fully applicable. He further submits that the dismissal of earlier PILs will not come in the way to entertain this PIL, and prayed to set aside the order dated 7-10-1999 (Annexure-D) and the order dated 10-12-1999 Annexure-D. He relied on the decisions in K. Ramadas shenoy v The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi and others; Pee Kay Constructions v K. Chandrashekar Hegde and U. Nithyananda v Member Secretary, Town Planning Authority, Udupi and others.