Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 733 (KAR)

Golden Meadows Developers v. State of Karnataka

2022-06-10

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) "Declare that the classification of the schedule lands (Sy.No.29/6 measuring 1 Acre 5 guntas, Sy.No.30/2A measuring 3 Acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.30/2B measuring 3 Acres 25 guntas of Kasavanahalli Village) as Industrial (Hi-tech) Zone in Revised Master Plan-2015 (RMP-2015) as designated in the land use map of planning district 3.18(a)n Begur vide Annexure - K, as illegal and consequently to quash the same. b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Communication bearing No.BemAaPra/NaYoSa/DLP33/1782/2019-20 dtd. 6/3/2020 issued by the Respondent NO.3 vide Annexure-C. c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos2 and 3 to consider the Requisition dtd. 25/2/2020 and Application No.1331 (DLP-33/19-20) submitted by the Petitioner No.1 vide Annexures - F and G, seeking for sanction of development plan (Group housing plan) in respect of the schedule lands by considering the residential zoning classification instead of Industrial (Hi-tech) zoning classification, within such time limit as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. d) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be a partnership consisting of three partners and petitioner No.2 is a limited liability partnership. Petitioner No.2 is stated to be the absolute owner of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.29/6, 3 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.30/2A and 3 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.3/2B of Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, BBMP Ward No.150, Bengaluru totally measuring 8 acres 5 guntas and there is an attached kharab of 14 guntas. 3. The land was earlier converted in the year 1992 for residential purposes, the said properties were brought into the common stock of petitioner No.1-firm by petitioner No.2. A reconstituted registered partnership deed has been executed on 17/3/2016. 4. The petitioners proposed to set up a residential project in the aforesaid lands and as such, submitted the necessary application/requisition letter on 25/2/2020 to respondent No.3 seeking approval of the plan to construct residential flats consisting of 6 blocks of 119 units each, totaling 607 units. 5. The said requisition was rejected by respondent No.3 on 6/3/2020 on the ground that such residential development would not be permissible, since the land was denoted and classified for Hi-tech industrial purpose in the Revised Master Plan 2015 (hereinafter referred to as RMP-2015 for short). 5. The said requisition was rejected by respondent No.3 on 6/3/2020 on the ground that such residential development would not be permissible, since the land was denoted and classified for Hi-tech industrial purpose in the Revised Master Plan 2015 (hereinafter referred to as RMP-2015 for short). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the classification was made on account of the proposal to set up a High tech City by respondent No.2 in and around the said area by acquiring around 1000 acres of land which was challenged in WP.No.10800/2005 and other connected matters. The petitioners are also parties to the challenge in the said writ petition. 7. This Court vide its order dtd. 30/7/2008 had quashed the acquisition and therefore, he submits that when the very purpose of establishing Hi-tech city by way of acquisition was quashed by this Court, the question of the continuance of denoting or classifying the lands of the petitioners as Hi-tech industrial zone would not arise. 8. In this regard, he also refers to the report as regards the Planning Districts of Begur within which the lands of the petitioners fall under, to contend that the recommendations or reasons which have been given for the purpose of classifying the lands of the petitioners as Hi-tech zone was an account of the proposal of the authority to set up the Hi-tech corridor project in the said area. As such, he submits that the Hi-tech corridor project not having gone through the classification made in the revised master plan, ought to have been reclassified and/or rectified in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10800/2005 dtd. 30/7/2008. 9. He refers to Sec. 12 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KTCP Act' for short) to contend that the contents of the master plan, which includes zoning of land use for various purposes would also require publication by the State Government through the Director of Town Planning. The report explains the provisions of the master plan. The report explains the provisions of the master plan. The explanation offered in the said report being the classification on account of Hi-tech corridor project, the corridor project having been quashed, the classification would have to be reverted to residential purpose as contained in the Comprehensive Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as the 'CDP-1995' for short). On the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid reliefs. The application filed in the petition is required to be considered by respondent No.3 for residential construction in terms of the CDP1995, due to the quashing of the project of Hi-tech city project. 10. Sri Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA would, however, submit that the declaration of the Hi-tech zone was made in RMP-2015 which came into force on 25/6/2007. The petitioners being the owners of the lands prior to the RMP-2015 being brought into force and even prior to the date on which the RMP-2015 was notified. The petitioners not having objected to the said RMP-2015, cannot now contend after a period of nearly 13 years thereafter that the classification is bad in law. 11. He further submits that the quashing of the Hi-tech city project was also made by this Court on 30/7/2008, the present petition is filed in the year 2020 is also belated and on account of latches, is required to be dismissed. 12. He submits that in the interregnum period from the year 2007 to 2020 and even now, there are several projects which have come up in the said area for Hi-tech purposes, various industries have been established. The RMP-2015 is acted upon in terms of classified rule in the RMP-2015 as also the district-wise report which is published along with the RMP-2015. The objectives of the plan being set in motion and having been achieved partially, the same cannot be set at naught by the petitioners now challenging the same at this length of time. On these grounds, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 13. Sri B.V. Krishna, learned AGA submits that the State is only a formal party and the matter is between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3. 14. On these grounds, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 13. Sri B.V. Krishna, learned AGA submits that the State is only a formal party and the matter is between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3. 14. Heard Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also Sri B.V.Krishna, learned AGA for respondent-State and perused the papers. 15. The grievance as aforesaid and contentions by Sri Reusen Jacob, learned Senior Counsel is that the land which has been converted for residential purposes has been classified for Hi-tech industrial purposes which classification was done solely on the basis of Hi-tech city project which was proposed to be set up. The acquisition for the Hi-tech city corridor has been set aside, the classification has to revert to residential purposes. The decision of this Court in WP.No.10800/2005 and other connected matters is based on the aspect of the BDA having initiated a scheme to set up a Hi-tech city which is not the authorized/proper Authority to set up a Hi-tech city inasmuch as the BDA is only a planning Authority, cannot acquire lands for the purposes of establishment of industries. 16. This Court was categorical in its observation that the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'KIADB' for short) has been established under the Karnataka Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KIDA Act' for short). The KIADB is vested with the power of orderly industrial development and it is only under the KIAD Act that land can be acquired for the purpose of establishing industrial areas to promote industries, the establishment of industries and orderly development of industries in such industrial areas. Hence, the only reason on the basis of which WP.No.10800/2005 was allowed is that the BDA could not establish an industry or could not acquire lands for the purpose of establishing an industry. Reading of the said decision does not indicate this Court having held that the BDA could not classify a land for industrial purpose. 17. Hence, the only reason on the basis of which WP.No.10800/2005 was allowed is that the BDA could not establish an industry or could not acquire lands for the purpose of establishing an industry. Reading of the said decision does not indicate this Court having held that the BDA could not classify a land for industrial purpose. 17. Preamble of the KTCP Act reads as under: "With the formation of the New state of Mysore it has become necessary to have a uniform law for the regulation of planned growth of land use and development and for the making and execution of town planning schemes in the State. Physical Planning has to precede economic planning as otherwise cities, towns and villages of our country will grow to unmanageable sizes without proper planning resulting in unhealthy surroundings. Physical planning with co-ordinated effort on a large scale is necessary if the people are to live in a better, healthier and happier environment. The proposed measure is expected to solve the Town Planning problems." 18. The Act was promulgated for the following purposes: "An Act to provide for the regulation of planned growth of land use and development and for the making and execution of town planning schemes in the State of Karnataka. Whereas it is necessary and expedient:- a) to create conditions favourable for planning and replanning of the urban and rural areas in the State of Karnataka, with a view to providing full civic and social amenities for the people in the State; b) to stop uncontrolled development of land due to land speculation and profiteering in land; c) to preserve and improve existing recreational facilities and other amenities contributing towards balanced use of land; and d) to direct the future growth of populated areas in the State, with a view to ensuring desirable standards of environmental health and hygiene, and creating facilities for the orderly growth of industry and commerce, thereby promoting general standards of living in the State." 19. A perusal of the above would indicate that though this Court has held that the BDA could not acquire lands for the purpose of establishing an industry. The preamble and statement of reasons categorically indicates that the Planning Authority has the power to plan for the orderly growth of industry and commerce and thereby promote general standards of living in this area. The preamble and statement of reasons categorically indicates that the Planning Authority has the power to plan for the orderly growth of industry and commerce and thereby promote general standards of living in this area. In the present case, what we are concerned about is not as regards the acquisition of land but as regards the planning power that has been resorted to by the BDA by exercising power under the KTCP Act. The KTCP Act empowers the BDA to prepare plans for the orderly development of the city of Bengaluru. The reasons for establishing industrial corridors lies strictly within the policy framework of the BDA and this Court cannot enter into the aspects of whether Hi-tech zone is required in a particular area or not. This Court can only be at most concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. 20. The only ground which has been sought to be made out as regards challenging the decision-making process by Sri Reusen Jacob, learned Senior Counsel is that the decision was based on the proposal to establish a Hi-tech city and since the acquisition for the High Tech City has been quashed, the land has to revert to residential purpose. 21. In my considered opinion that is not tenable for the reason that this Court in the decision in WP.No.10800/2005 at para 16 has held as under: " The decision of the three men Committee constituted to take over the very same land by the KIADB in the place of BDA to launch scheme is not sustainable as the scheme formulated under the BDA Act, cannot from the basis to formulate the scheme under the KIADB to continue the scheme as it will be nothing but colourable exercise of power arbitrarily to the prejudice of the petitioners. The whole scheme formulated under the BDA Act is non-est in the eye of law as it is without the authority of law which is void. If at all the KIADB intends to implement the scheme it has to take steps afresh by notifying the area as industrial area under Sec. 3(1) of KIADB Act after due compliance with circular of Government dtd. If at all the KIADB intends to implement the scheme it has to take steps afresh by notifying the area as industrial area under Sec. 3(1) of KIADB Act after due compliance with circular of Government dtd. 3/3/2007 surveying newly by looking into factual latest position with new alignment as so many residential layouts have come in between due to dropping of acquisition of lands by BDA due to various reasons, also keeping in view the circular of the Government dtd. 3/3/2007 No.CE 151 SPQ 2007 not to notify for acquisition of residential houses, schools, converted lands, garden lands, fertile lands, hospitals, parks, developed layouts etc., under the permission of the authority." 22. A perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is clear that though this Court has held that the scheme formulated under the BDA Act is non-est in law and without Authority. This Court also categorically held that if the KIADB intends to implement the scheme, it has to take steps afresh by notifying the area as industrial area. Though the said decision was rendered on 30/7/2008 by which time RMP 2015 had come into force on 25/6/2007. Even when the said matter was being considered by this Court, the petitioners have not raised any issue in the said writ petition and the petitioners have not filed any objections to the classification. 23. The classification of land has been Hi-tech industrial purposes. In my considered opinion, it would not adversely affect the petitioners in any particular manner inasmuch as the petitioners, would always seek for a change of land use by making a necessary application which would be considered by the BDA in accordance with the applicable law. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that there are no tenable grounds made out to consider the prayers which have been sought for in the above petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.