WHITE FEATHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a final notice dtd. 16/6/2015 issued by the 2nd respondent/ BangaloreMysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short).

(2.) The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The 3rd respondent is M/s Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Limited ('NECEL' for short). It is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It claims to have engaged in implementation of Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project comprising of several kilometers. The 3rd respondent enters into a framework agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'the agreement' for short) on 3/4/1997 with the Government of Karnataka. Under the said agreement the 3rd respondent had certain rights over the land in the surrounding of the peripheral ring road. It is the claim of the 3rd respondent that all the litigations against the said framework agreement had ended in its favour up to the Apex Court. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the framework agreement or its interpretation.

(3.) The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in the business of events management, desirous of taking certain pieces of land which comes within the rights of the 3rd respondent in terms of the framework agreement, enters into a contract with the 3rd respondent for erection of temporary structure in lands bearing Sy.Nos.40, 41/1 41/2, 42/1 and 42/2 measuring 1 acre 27.25 guntas in Beretena Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Under the out-line development plan, it is claimed that the 3 rd respondent has a right to enter into such agreement in terms of permitted commercial land use of the land coming within the framework agreement. Pursuant to the said right and the desire of the petitioner to take the aforesaid land for conducting events by erecting temporary structure, enters into the aforesaid agreement. The Planning Authority/2nd respondent noticing the fact that there is development in the land and the said development has taken place without the permission of the Planning Authority, issues a show cause notice on 4/5/2015 calling upon the petitioner to produce certain documents viz., commencement certificate and sanctioned plan for putting up structures in the subject property described hereinabove. The petitioner claims to have furnished a reply on 14/5/2015 by producing plethora of documents indicating that it was a temporary fabrication and there is no need to obtain any plan sanction for construction nor a commencement certificate is required for a temporary structure. The 2nd respondent issues a final notice on 16/6/2015 directing the petitioner to remove the structure which according to the 2nd respondent was unauthorized. It is this notice that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court, on 8/7/2015, granted an interim order as prayed for, in favour of the petitioner, which is in subsistence even as on date. Therefore, for the last 9 years the activity of the petitioner and event management activities of the petitioner have gone on unhindered.