RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner association is seeking a writ of mandamus to the 1st and 2nd respondents to enable the 3rd respondent for developing the civic amenity sites bearing Nos. 48, 48A, 49 and 49A situated at 4th phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore, formed by the Karnataka Housing Board, as a public park only. It has also sought the quashing of the allotment of civic amenity site No. 49A in favour of the 4th respondent and the resolution dated 06.06.2009 amending the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP).

(2.) Sri N.G. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner association is formed for safeguarding the interests of the residents of the locality. To buttress his submission that the petitioner association has the litigational competence to file the PIL, he relies on a decision of the Apex Court in Bangalore Medical Trust, v. B.S. Muddappa and others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1902. He submits that once an area is earmarked for the purpose of a park, it cannot be converted into a civic amenity site. Even if it has to be converted, it has to be only with the approval of the Government. In the instant case, there is no such conversion, much less approval from the Government, so contends learned counsel. In this regard, he complaints of the violation of the requirements contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, (for short 'the Act'). The said provisions are extracted herein;

(3.) Sri. Nanjunda Swamy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that Annexure-A is only a survey sketch. He submits that the petitioner is not justified in construing the same as an approved plan. He submits that the civic amenity sites in question were never earmarked for any park purpose. In the plan approved on 18.12.1998, the sites in question are shown as civic amenity sites only.