M SHANKAR RAO Vs. CITY IMPROVEMENT BOARD SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner in possession of Sy. No. 58 of Kallahalli village, Shimoga Taluk, measuring 18 acres 18 guntas. The said land is proposed for the residential use as per approved outline development plan of, Shimoga. On 20-6-1983, the petitioner made an application to the respondent under Section 31 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act') for grant of sanction for the purpose of forming a layout as per the original of Annexure-A. The respondent-Board passed a resolution on 18-11-1983 refusing permission to the petitioner on the ground that the respondent itself was forming a layout including the land of the petitioner. It was, however, communicated to the petitioner on 10-1-1984 as per the original of Annex- ure-B ie., beyond six months from the date of his application. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as the respondent did not refuse sanction to the petitioner within six months from the date of the receipt of his application, such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted to him according to sub-section (8) of Section 31 of the Act. By its communication dated 18-11-1986, the respondent directed the petitioner not to proceed with any development activities in the said land. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Annexure-F and for declaration that the sanction sought for by him under section 31 of the Act for forming layout in Sy. No. 58 of Kallahalli village is deemed to have been granted.

(2.) The respondent has filed written objections contending inter alia, that the notice Annexure-F is valid, that as the respondent-Board refused the request of the petitioner for sanction within six months, it is valid refusal as it is not required to be communicated according to sub-section (8) of Section 31 of the Act and that the application of the petitioner is not a valid application as it was not accompanied by plans and estimates as required by sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act.

(3.) The first contention of Mr. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent is that the application of the petitioner was not according to subsection (2) of Section 31 of the Act in as much as it was not accompanied by the plans and estimates. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act reads thus : "Any person intending to form an extension or layout or to make a new private street shall send to the Chairman, a written application with plans and estimates showing such particulars, as may be prescribed by-laws made by the Board". In this case, it is admitted by Mr. Patil that no bye-laws have been made by the Board regarding the particulars to be mentioned in the plans and estimates. Moreover, it was open to the Board to call for further information from the applicant regarding the plans and estimates if it needed them. That also has not been done by the Board. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Board itself is executing the scheme including the land of the petitioner and not on the ground that his application was not accompanied by plans and estimates. Therefore, I see no force in the said contention of Mr. Patil.