Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1686 (KAR)

Raksha Nikunj Layout v. State of Karnataka

2019-07-15

B.VEERAPPA

body2019
JUDGMENT : B Veerappa, J. Sri. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they will pay individual Court fee for all 74 persons, who are the members of petitioner No.1-Association. 2. The said submission is placed on record. 3. The petitioners' Association consists of 74 members, who purchased 74 plots in an area of 4 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, are before this Court for a writ of mandamus for declaration that the action of the State and its authorities in resorting to continuous threatening day in and day out, of forcible dispossession from 74 residential houses constructed in 74 plots in the approved layout plan of respondent No.7 in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, without notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 4. It is further case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the registered Resident Welfare Association consisting of the petitioners - 74 plots owners, who are the members of petitioner No.1 Association, which was registered on 02.01.2010. On 26.10.2007, in the interests and the welfare of its members, who are having the dwelling units, constructed in 74 plots in the approved layout of 4 acre 10 guntas approved by respondent No.7-Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA). On 18.02.2008 conversion orders obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District. The petitioner No.2 purchased the property from one Mr.Venkatachalapathy on 21.03.2009. On 05.07.2013 one of the plot owner of the above layout has brought the status-quo order in O.S.No.1079/2012 before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that all the petitioners have purchased 74 plots under separate registered sale deeds. Thereafter, respondent No.6, in pursuance of the registered sale deeds made in favour of the respondent No.11, made necessary changes in the revenue records and the copy of the mutation extract produced as per Annexure-D. It is further contended that respondent No.4, after satisfying with the ownership rights and lawful possession of the respondent No.11 over the said lands, had passed the conversion order. It is the further case of the petitioners that the respondent No.11, after obtaining the layout approval and also after donating the common areas to respondent No.7 through registered relinquishment deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 15.12.2008, had sold and transferred the plots in the said layout in favour of the 74 persons through registered sale deeds for valuable sale consideration. All the plot owners are the bonafide purchasers of their respective plots for valuable sale consideration from respondent No.11, who were inducted in actual and physical possession of their respective plots sold and transferred by respondent No.11 while conveying the respective plots in favour of individual persons, who are the members of petitioner No.1-Society. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the right, title, interest, physical and actual possession of the respective owners of 74 dwelling units are never disputed or objected by any authority of the State at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour respondent No.11 of 4 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. When the things stood thus, the revenue officials from the office of respondent No.6 are regularly causing harassment and illegal steps of interference in the enjoyment of respective houses of the members of petitioner No.1 Association without any basis, on the false pretext that the respective residential building properties constructed is a Government land that too without issuance of any notice whatsoever under any provisions of the statute are frequently visiting the building properties of the petitioners and on the false pretext that the residential buildings constructed with necessary approvals are Government property. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent State authorities are in utter violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for the reliefs sought for. 7. The Respondent No.7 - Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) filed the objections denying the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as the relief sought for by them is civil in nature and they have to approach the appropriate Civil Court. It is further contended that, in the prayer it is stated that the layout plan is approved by respondent No.7, which is totally false and baseless. It is further contended that, in the prayer it is stated that the layout plan is approved by respondent No.7, which is totally false and baseless. No approval in respect of Sy.No.30, Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, has been granted by respondent No.7 - Authority. Annexure-B letter dated 26.10.2007 is a letter by respondent No.7 to the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, is only for the purpose of conversion of land and it is not final approval of layout itself. The said letter makes it clear that obtaining of conversion is not getting approval of layout plan itself. It is further contended that Annexure-B is a communication between respondent No.7 and Deputy Commissioner and it is not a commencement certificate or sanction letter. It is also contended that some of the persons have already filed suit before the Civil Court and it is for the petitioners to pursue the same. Therefore, respondent No.7 has sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 9. Sri Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners on behalf of Sri Ravindra Reddy, contended that the impugned action of respondent State authorities interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential plots by all the petitioners are opposed to Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it cannot be sustained. It is further contended that respondent No.1 or its authorities are under obligation to follow the rule of law and citizens rights of unwarranted harassment. It is further contended that in spite of filing Civil suit and obtaining status-11 quo order, the officials they have not stopped threatening of forcible dispossession. 10. He further contended that petitioners are all claiming that they are the owners of 74 plots constructed by respondent No.11 in an area of measuring 4 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, the respondent State authorities ought to have issued legal notice and taken action in accordance with law and cannot dispossess the property rights of the petitioners without providing an opportunity of hearing. Hence, sought to allow the writ petitions. 11. Hence, sought to allow the writ petitions. 11. Per contra, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 10, on instructions, submits that if at all the authorities found that the land in Sy.No.30 is a Government Land, they will take action only in accordance with law by following procedure contemplated in law. His submission is placed on record. 12. Sri Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that Bengaluru International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) has not at all approved the layout of respondent No.11, who constructed 74 plots and alienated in favour of members of the petitioner No.1 Association on various sale deeds. Annexure-B is only an internal correspondence between respondent No.7 and the Deputy Commissioner with regard to conversion of lands. He further contended that some of the persons have already approached the Civil Court. The relief sought for by the petitioners in the present petitions is nothing but injunction and they have to approach competent Civil Court and hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioners that they are the owners of 74 plots purchased from original owner i.e., respondent No.11, in an extent of 4 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, under various registered sale deeds in the year 2007. One of the sale deed is produced as per Annexure-C - Sale deed of respondent No.11, which clearly indicates that respondent No.11 purchased the property in question i.e., Sy.No.30 measuring 4 acre 10 guntas in Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District under the registered sale deed. It is their specific contention that after the plots being constructed by respondent No.11 as approved by BIAAPA, respondent No.7 filed objections before this Court that they have not approved the layout plan and Annexure-B is only an internal correspondence between respondent No.7 and the Special Deputy Commissioner with regard to conversion of land. 14. If the respondent No.11 has not taken any permission to put up construction or permission from the respondent No.7, it is for the authorities to take appropriate action only after issuing individual notice to 74 plot owners - petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. 14. If the respondent No.11 has not taken any permission to put up construction or permission from the respondent No.7, it is for the authorities to take appropriate action only after issuing individual notice to 74 plot owners - petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 15. Without issuing notice and without holding any enquiry, whether the property measuring 4 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.30 of Boyalahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, is a Government land or not and whether the same was converted and then constructed plots after obtaining approval of layout plan from respondent No.7 or not has to be verified after issuing individual notice to the petitioners and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law; after following the procedure as contemplated. The authorities cannot interfere unnecessarily with the rights of the petitioners in respect of immovable properties - plots. 16. In view of the above, writ petitions are disposed off directing respondent No.1 and its authorities to proceed in accordance with law only after issuing individual notice to the petitioners and after affording opportunity of hearing and to verify the property claimed by the petitioners belongs to State or not and to proceed strictly in accordance with law. 17. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged at the appropriate point of time. In view of the disposal of the main petition on merits, I.A.No.1/2019 would not arise for consideration.