1738/2012, 1740-1741/2012, AND W.A. NOS. 1743-1747/2012, 16715/2011 (LB-BMP)
IN WA No.1303/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REPRESENTED BYITS COMMISSIONER.
2
2. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH) BBMP NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/o LATE P.N.KRISHNAPPA, No.1538/42, THINDLU VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURAM, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560064. REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER M/s SUMADHURA CONSTRUCTIONS A REGISTERED PARNERSHIP FIRM No.117/2, SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE – 560068. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-1 SRI D.VIJAY KUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.34923/2010 DATED 21/01/2011.
3
IN WA Nos.1300-1302/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, BANGALORE – 560048. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI B.V.S. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/o SOMI REDDY, No.401, B BLOCK, MAITHRI PRIDE, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, MALLESH PALYAM, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE – 560075. 2. SRI B.BALASUNDARAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/o SRO AYYAVARAPPA REDDY, R/a No.7, 3RD MAIN, ASHWINI LAYOUT, EJIPURA, BANGALORE – 560047. 3. SRI N JAYARAJU, AGED 51 YEARS, S/o SRI NANJAPPA REDDY, R/a KAGGADASAPURA, C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560093.
4
(RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER M/s MAITHRI DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B.V.S. REDDY) 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV FOR R1 TO R3 SRI D.VIJAYKUMAR, AGA FOR R4)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.34616-618/2010 DATED 21/01/2011. IN WA Nos.1304-1305/2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE – 560002. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.)
5
AND: 1. SRI H.K.NANJAIAH, S/o LATE KADEGOWDA, AGED 55 YEARS. 2. SMT C VASANTHA KUMARI, W/o H.K.NANJAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS No.1&2 ARE R/at No.199/20/1A, PATTANGERE VILLAGE, KENGERI SUB DIVISION, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE. REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI D RAGHU PARTNER OF M/s ADITYA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADV.)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.36592/2010 AND 36593/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.3478/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING,
6
NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s ARATTUKULAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., 79, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR ROAD, (ADJACENT TO CHEVROLET SHOWROOM), BEHIND CITI BANK ATM, BANGALORE – 560068. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI TONY VINCENT. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SUMAN, ADV. FOR R-1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.25221/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.3480/2011 & 5698-5705/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
7
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE -560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. Mr MOOLA RAMESH, @ Dr.RAMESH MOOLA, S/o LATE MOOLA RANGAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS. 2. Mrs ANURADHA R MOOLA, W/o Dr RAMESH MOOLA, AGED 57 YEARS. 3. Mr.VIVESH R MOOLA, S/o Dr.RAMESH MOOLA, AGED 31 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.21/2, LANGFORD ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560001. 4. Mrs DECHU R MOOLA, W/o LATE Mr.RAVINDRANATH MOOLA, AGED 65 YEARS. 5. Mr. VISHNU R MOOLA, S/o LATE Mr.RAVINDRANATH MOOLA, AGED 38 YEARS. 6. Mrs BRINDA R MOOLA, D/o LATE Mr.RAVINDARANATH MOOLA, AGED 35 YEARS.
8
RESPONDENTS Nos.4 TO 6 ARE R/at No.21/1, LANGFORD ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560001. 7. Mrs SHOBHA TALWAR, D/o LATE Mr MOOLA RANGAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/at No.8 (OLD No.1), PRIME STREET, BANGALORE – 560025. (RESPONDENTS Nos 1 TO 7 ARE REP. BY POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI ARUN ADVANI) 8. M/s PRIMROSE REALTY PROJECTS (BANGALORE) PVT LTD., VASWANI VICTORIA, No.30, VICTORIA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560047. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR Mr. ARUN ADVANI. 9. Mr.ARUN D ADVANI, AGED 41 YEARS, 383, REGENCY PLACE No.7, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADV. FOR M/s HOLLA & HOLLA FOR C/R1-9)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.26249-257/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
9
IN WA Nos.17722-17724/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEXE BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI S ASLAM, AGED 44 YEARS, S/o SRI SYED MAHABOOB, R/at No.103, A BLOCK, SPARTAN HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560025. 2. Mrs. NAZEEMA ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/o Mr.ASLAM S R/a No.103, A BLOCK, SPARTAN HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560025. 3. M/s CANOPY DWELLING(P) LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT “CANOPY HOUSE”, No.969, 5TH A CROSS, HRBR I BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
10
BANGALORE – 560043. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/s V.K.C. DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHOURASIA HEIGHTS No.22, 1ST CROSS, ASHWATH NAGAR, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560037. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI VIJAYA PRAKASH CHOURASIA AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI C.H.VIJAY KUMAR CHOURASIA) 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R4 R1 AND 2 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.31918-31920/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17725/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
11
NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.,) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHEELA N REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI NARAYANA REDDY, R/a SUSHEELA NARAYANA NILAYA BESIDES MEENAKSHI TEMPLE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560076. REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY M/s WINDSOR GARDENS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY REGISTERED AT No.81, 1ST FLOOR, 36TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560011. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.SRINIVASA RAO. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (R-1 SERVED SRI D.VIJAY KUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
12
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.33043/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17726/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR (NORTH) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: M/s ARJITA BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., No.20, 12TH CROSS, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560094. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI M.D.ESHWAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.VISHWANATH, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.32893/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
13
IN WA No.17727/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEXE BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.E-106, 22, SUNRISE CHAMBERS ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560042. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.VIJAYAKUMAR G BAGOJI. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ, ADV. FOR M/s ANUP S SHAH LAW FIRM FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMARA, AGA FOR R2)
14
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITON No.32111/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17728/2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (TOWN PLANNING NORTH) BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001. 2. BENGALURU BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560001. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: SHRI J CHANNAREDDY, S/o LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND SRINIVAS TALKIES MARATHALLI BANGALORE – 560037. (REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY NCC URBAN IFRASTRUCTURE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT No.17/4, 2ND FLOOR, RAMANA MAHARISHI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560080.
15
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.V.MURALI KRISHNAM RAJU) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R.SHIVCHARAN, ADV. FOR S.A.PARTNERS FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.29678/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17729/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JC ROAD, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JC ROAD, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE. REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-SOUTH) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: M/s HAMARA SHELTERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVINT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.41, VITTAL MALYA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001 AND
16
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.GIRISH GUPTHA H …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.MAHESH, ADV. FOR MAHESH & CO.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.34340/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.17730-17731/2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAHEJA CHAMBERS, LINKING ROAD AND MAIN AVENUE, SANTACRUZ WEST MUMBAI – 400054. AND BRANCH OFFICE AT,
17
ONYX CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR, No.5, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR, Mr.ADITYA RAHEJA. 2. ADITYA RAHEJA, S/o DEEPAK RAHEJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/a RAHEJAS, 82/1, G.B.MARG, JAHU MUMBAI – 400049. (NOW AT BANGALORE) 3. THE BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, 1ST FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560009. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR M/s ASK LEGAL FOR R1 AND R2 SRI S.N.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADV. FOR R3)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.31628-31629/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.17732-17733/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), NR CIRCLE,
18
BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R, ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. GSTAAD HOTEL PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.24/1, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, WARD No.76(OLD) BANGALORE – 560001. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DIRECTOR, Mr.ADITYA RAHEJA. 2. ADITYA RAHEJA, S/o DEEPAK RAHEJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/a RAHEJA, 82/1, G.B.MARG, JUHU MUMBAI – 400049. (NOW AT BANGALORE) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR M/s ASK LEGAL)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.31626-31627/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17734/2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (TOWN PLANNING NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002.
19
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SHRI N.G.CHANDRA REDDY, S/o N.C.GURUMURHTY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 2. SRI NAVEEN N.C. S/o SRI N.G.CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. 3. SMT. DEEPASHRI, D/o CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 4. CHETHAN N.C., S/o N.G.CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. (PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 4 ARE R/at No.222/222, DODDANNEKUNDI, BANGALORE – 560037. REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI C.PRAMOD) …RESPONDENTS (BY M/s CHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.31446/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
20
IN WA Nos.17735-17737/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS JOINT COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: M/s SIROYA PROPERTIES & HOLDINGS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.18, 2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE – 560052. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Mr.SHAILESH D SIROYA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.PRABHAKAR, ADV.)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.34080-34082/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17738/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE,
21
BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), ANNEXE BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. S N GUNDU RAO & ASSOCIATES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE No.19, “SHANKARA”, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE – 560055. REP. BY ITS POER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/s KIDS CLINIC (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., REG. OFFICE AT No.1533, 9TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560011. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, Dr.R.KISHORE KUMAR. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJADITHYA SADASHIVAN, ADV FOR R-1 SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
22
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.33042/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17739/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SHRI B.C.JAYARAMAREDDY, S/o SHRI B CHICKKA GURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SMT. N.JAYAKANTHA, W/o SHRI B.C.JAYARAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT No.11, 1ST CROSS ROAD, MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560076. 3. SMT G.KUSUMA REDDY, W/o SHRI G.PATTABHI REDDY,
23
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/a No.230, 18TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560034. 4. M/s SPLENDID BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.1, VARS ALL SEASONS APTS, KONENA AGRAHARA, OFF AIRPORT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560017. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS SHRI P JAGADEESHWAR REDDY S/o BHEEMESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY M/s RAJESH & RAJESH FOR R1 TO R4 SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGA FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.32855/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.17740-17743/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002.
24
REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SMT.SUSHEELAMMA @ SUHSHEELA N REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/o LATE SRI C NARAYANA REDDY. 2. SRI N.SWAROOP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI C NARAYANA REDDY. 3. SRI N SHASHANK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI C NARAYANA REDDY. (PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT “SWAROOP KUMAR GARDEN” BANNERGHATTA ROAD, HULIMAVU VILLAGE AND POST ADJACENT TO MEENAKSHI TEMPLE, BANGALORE – 560076) 4. M/s VISHALA INDIA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.E1/16, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560076, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI U.B.VENKATESH. 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT.,
25
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.RANGARAJAN AND SRI S.N.RAVINDRA, ADVs FOR M/s J.R.ASSTS. FOR R1 - R4 SRI D.VIJAY KUMAR, AGA FOR R5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.30328-30331/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.17744-17745/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA (KARNATAKA), 6TH FLOOR, BARTON CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001. REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.RAJ MENDA.
26
2. Mr.RAJ MENDA, S/o ARJUN MENDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/at No.78/1, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADV. FOR R1 & 2 SRI D.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGA FOR R3)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.28119-28120/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.17746/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.)
27
AND: 1. SMT. SAPNA, D/o SRI SHYAM MANGARAM GANGALANI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 2. SMT.TAMANNA, D/o SRI SHYAM MANGARAM GNAGALANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS No.1 & 2 ARE REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/s SAPNA DEEPAM DEVELOPERS, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY) 3. M/s SAPNA DEEPAM DEVELOPERS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.125, SAPNA MAHAL, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560052. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJESH B.M. ADV. FOR R1 TO 3 SRI D.VIJAYKUMAR, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.33273/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
28
IN WA No.1306/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s RADIANT PROPERTIES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.48/49 SATHYAMS, 1ST FLOOR, B WING, OPP:RAJASHEKAR HOSPITAL SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560078. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI P SATHYASHEKAR. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
29
THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.35153/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
IN WA No.1307/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SMT MANJULA, W/o C SREENIVASAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/o No.117/1A, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHALLY POST, BANGALORE – 560037. REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI MADHU S/o BHASKAR NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/a No.406, VANDANA REGENCY, GULMOHAR ENCLAVE ROAD, NUNDANAHALLY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560037. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS
30
(BY SRI R.SANTHOSHKUMAR & ASSTS., ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35623/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1689/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s PARKRUTHI BUILDERS REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM No.28, SSK ENCLAVE, 5TH FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560070. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI T JANARDHAN RAO. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
31
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35718/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1690/2012 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (TOWN PLANNING NORTH), VRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: INDIRA APARTMENTS PVT LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.5, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560025. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI C.GOPALAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.V.SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR M/s CHALAPATHY & SRINIVAS FOR R1)
32
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.31447/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.1691-1694/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SMT. RANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/o LATE Y.S.PUTTARAJU. 2. SRI Y.P.NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/o LATE Y.S.PUTTARAJU. 3. SRI Y.P.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEAERS, S/o LATE Y.S.PUTTARAJU. 4. Y.P.NARASIMHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/o LATE Y.S.PUTTARAJU. (REP. No.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT No.847/1442/1B
33
PUTTARAJU BUILDING NEHRU NAGAR, YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 560064 AND REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/s RADIANT JASMINE PROPERTIES BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI M.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY) 5. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35439-442/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.1695-1696/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.)
34
AND: 1. SRI CHANDRAPPA, S/o LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 2. SRI C.SATHEESHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/o SRI CHANDRAPPA. (RESPONDENTS No.1 AND 2 ARE R/a No.33, YELENAHALLI VILLAGE BEGUR POST, BANGALORE – 560068) 3. M/s RADIANT PRAJAPRIYA DEVELOPER REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REG. OFFICE AT No.48/49 SATHYAM, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD, OPP.RAJASHEKAR HOSPITAL, J P NAGAR I PHASE, BANGALORE – 560078. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PARTNER M.SURESH REDDY. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1-3 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R4)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35719-35720/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
35
IN WA Nos.1697-1699/2012 & WA Nos.1700-1702/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI T SRINIVASA REDDY, S/o THIMMAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HULIMAVU VILLAGE, NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560076. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.36822/10 AND 37160-164/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
36
IN WA Nos.1703-1705/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, REP. BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SMT. A LATHA, W/o SRI K ASHOK KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/a No.582-42, VIJAYA ENCLAVE, SRS NAGAR, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE. 2. SRI T.PRABHAKAR, S/o SRI T.CHENGAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/a No.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560085. 3. SRI A NAVEEN BHANDARY, S/o LATE A.L.BHANDARY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/a No.SB 22, VIJAY ENCLAVE, SRS NAGAR, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE.
37
(RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER SAPTHAGIRI DEVELOPERS, HAVITS ITS OFFICE AT No.48, 23RD MAIN, MARENAHALLI II PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560078.) 4. M/s SAPTHAGIRI DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.48, 23RD MAIN, MARENAHALLI II PHASE, JP NAGAR, (BEHIND MAYURA BAKERY) BANGALORE – 560078. REP. BY ITS PARTNERS
a) SRI S.K.PAPA REDDY b) SMT. P.K.PADMAVATHI
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY M/s HEGDE ASSOCIATES FOR R1 – 4 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35725-727/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1706/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
38
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s CENTURY CELESTE (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/s LAKE VIEW PROPERTIES) A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM No.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS PARTNERS: P.DAYANAND PAI P SATISH PAI SACHIN KAMAH 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R-1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35611/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1725/2012 BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE
39
MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: Mr.LOGANATHAN, S/o Mr.MANIKYAM, AGED 58 YEARS, R/at No.905/5, BEHIND AIYAPPA TEMPLE, T.DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.SUNDARAN, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.38512/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1726/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BBMP K.R.PURA DIVISION, BANGALORE – 560036. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.)
40
AND: 1. SHRI ALOKAM PEDDABBAIAH, S/o VEERARAGHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/a PLOT No.91, 5TH CROSS, P & T LAYOUT, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560043. REP. BY GPA HOLDER NADELLA SURESH S/o N HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/s VIJAYA BHASKARA CONSTRUCTIONS HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT No.312 1ST MAIN, 10TH CROSS, BANK AVENUE, KALYNANAGARA POST, BANGALORE – 560043. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.38870/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1727/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
41
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SHRI R.NARASIMHAIAH, S/o LATE SHRI B I RANGANARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. 2. SHRI N DIWAKAR, S/o SHRI R NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 3. SRI N PRABHAKAR, S/o SHRI R NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. SHRI N SUDHAKAR, S/o SHRI R NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 4 ARE R/a No.42, KALLAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560042) REP. BY THEIR PA HOLDER SRI RAJA DATTA. 5. SHRI S BALAN @ SHANMUGAM BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, S/o SRI SHANMUGAM CHETTIAR, AGED ABOUT 687 YEARS, No.13/3, GD CORNWELL CLASSIC,
42
CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560025. REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI RAJA DATTA. 6. SHRI RAJA DATTA, S/o SHRI RAJA JAYASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, No.13/3, GD CORNWELL CLASSIC CORNWELL ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE – 560025. 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJESH S.V. ADV. FOR RAJESH & RAJESH ASSOCIATES, FOR R1 TO R6 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.39552/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1729/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP ANNEX BUILDING NR SQUARE
43
BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s LOTUS DEVELOPERS No.11, 1ST B CROSS, KORAMANGALA INNER RING ROAD, SRINIVASULU, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560047, REP. BY ITS PARTNERS K.DEVI PRASAD REDDY & V O VENUGOPAL REDDY 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.39718/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.1730-1731/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
44
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI WILLIAM D’MELLO AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS S/o LATE SRI B. D’MELLO. 2. SRI LEONILLA LEWIS AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS D/o SILVESTER LEWIS. (RESPONDENTS No.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT No.361, BBMP No.1 “ABHINANDAN” 3RD MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, CHIKKABANASWADI, BANGALORE – 560043. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R3)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.39716-717/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
45
IN WA No.1732/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY (K R PURAM DIVISION) BBMP, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI K.A.DEVARAJ, S/o A ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/a No.11, GURUMURTHY STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE – 560008. REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER Sr. M SATISH REDDY S/o M ANANDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/s ADITHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, HAVING OFFICE AT: FLAT No.102, ANAND ENCLAVE, 7TH A CROSS, LBS NAGAR, HAL POST, BANGALORE – 560017. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
46
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY M/s SNN ASSTS., FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.38723/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1733-1734/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI J MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI R JAYARAM. 2. SMT.SUMITHRA, W/o J MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS No.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, BANGALORE.
47
REP. BY GPA HOLDER M/s SAMHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM OFFICE AT ARDEN FAIR 7TH FLOOR, PAI LAYOUT, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENNIGANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560016. REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRATAP KUMAR REDDY) 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R3 R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.39714-715/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.1735/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS
48
(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI ROSHAN GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/o LATE C I GEORGE, R/A No.974, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560008. (REP. BY GPA HOLDER: M/s GINA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A CO. INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, REGD. OFFICE AT JUBILEE BUILDING, No.45, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560025. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Mr.TOMY THOMAS. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA ADV. FOR GPA HOLDER OF R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.40040/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
49
IN WA No.1738/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. TOTAL ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS(I) PVT. LTD., No.30(OLD No.1), KASTURBA ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, OLD WARD No.76, BANGALORE – 560025. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.SREEDHAR, ADV. FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
50
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.38016/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.1740-1741/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI A NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/o LATE CHIKKABBAIAHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, No.457/125/1, KAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI P ASHOK KUMAR, S/o VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER OF M/s INNOVATIVE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., No.60, I CROSS, II MAIN, J P NAGAR IV PHASE, DOLLORS COLONY, BANGALORE – 560078. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
51
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY ADV. FOR M/s ESSKAY ASSOCIATES FOR R1 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.38992-993/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA Nos.1743-1747/2012 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. SRI V ANANDSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/o LATE SRI VENKATARAMANAPPA. 2. SMT. GIRIJA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
52
W/o SRI V ANANDSWAMY. 3. SRI A SANTHOSH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/o SRI V ANANDSWAMY, R/at No.249, Sy.No.49/3, BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE – 560020. 4. SMT. A ANITHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/o SRI V ANANDSWAMY, W/o SRI SOMASHEKAR, R/at No.58, 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE – 560030. 5. SMT. A SANGEETHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/o SRI V ANANDSWAMY, W/o SRI UMESH, R/a No.52, III CROSS, INA SHETTY LAYOUT, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560026. REP. BY GPA HOLDER M/s SUMADHURA CONSTRUCTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM Sy. No.117/2, SINGASAN VILLAGE, BEGUR, BANGALORE – 560068. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN. 6. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENTS
53
(BY SRI P.S.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1-5 SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R6)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.40035-039/2010 DATED 21.01.2011. IN WA No.16715/2011 BETWEEN: 1. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BBMP ANNEX BUILDING, NR SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560002. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADV. FOR M/s ASHOK HARANAHALLI ASSTS.) AND: 1. M/s RAINBOW PROPERTIES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI SUPREETH SURESH S/o SRI R SURESH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BUILDER/DEVELOPER BY PROFESSION No.6, 3RD FLOOR, GAJANANA TOWERS, 11TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE.
54
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.35021/2010 DATED 21.01.2011.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, N KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
All these writ appeals are preferred by the Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike against a common order
dated 25th January 2012 passed in W.P.
Nos.25221/2010 and other connected matters, where
the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions,
quashing the demand on the ground that the BBMP had
no power to issue such notices.
2. The appellants are the Local Authority constituted
under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
55
(for short “KMC Act”). The Bangalore Development
Authority is a Planning Authority for the City of
Bangalore. The development of the Bangalore City shall
be in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short
‘Planning Act’) and the Bangalore Development
Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘BDA Act’). The Planning
Act provides for framing of Regulations, Guidelines, etc.
The Zonal Regulations have been framed under the
provisions of the Planning Act. The State Government
in exercise of its power under Section 13(E) of the
Planning Act has brought amendment to the Zonal
Regulations by issuing a notification dated 10.03.2006
thereby amending the Regulations in respect of open
spaces and civic amenities. The said notification
provided that the authority while approving the layout
in respect of an area measuring 4000 square meters
and lesser, there is no need for reserving the area for
open spaces and civic amenities as per the Master Plan
prepared under the Planning Act. However, the
56
amendment provided that the authorities shall collect
the market rate of the converted property as fixed by the
Sub-Registrar from the owner or developer to the extent
of 10% of the total area to be reserved for open spaces
and park in lieu of such reservation. Even before
amending the said Zonal Regulations, the Government
issued a notification in exercise of its power under
Section 81 of the Planning Act on 26.02.2004 conferring
certain powers of the Planning Authority to be exercised
by the Commissioner of Corporation, City of Bangalore
(BBMP). Accordingly, the appellants herein in terms of
the notification dated 10.03.2006 issued a Circular
dated 09.06.2010 directing the Planning Authority of
BBMP to follow Zoning Regulations while issuing plans
for development. In the Circular, it is stated that the
owners and developers are avoiding setting apart of area
to be reserved for parks, open spaces, etc. and as such
the demand notices shall be issued calling upon the
owners/developers to pay 10% of the guidelines value of
equivalent converted land in case the
57
owners/developers are not willing to surrender the land
for maintaining parks and civic amenities. The Circular
also provided that the said amount shall be kept in a
separate account and the said amount shall be utilized
for purchasing/acquiring the lands for development of
parks, etc., in accordance with the Master Plan, 2015.
The appellants issued demand notices to the
respondents calling upon them to pay 10% of the
guideline value of their respective properties. On receipt
of the said demand notices, the respondents
approached this Court challenging the said circular and
consequential demand notice. They also challenged the
notification dated 10.03.2006 on merits. One of the
ground on which the said demand and the circular
challenged was under the Planning Act, it is the
Planning Authority – the Bangalore Development
Authority, which has the power if at all to make the said
demand. Though the said power is sought to be
conferred on the BBMP, by relying on the Notification
dated 26.02.2004 issued under Section 81 of the
58
Planning Act, as the said the notification was not duly
published in the Official Gazette, the said notification
has no value in the eye of law as such there is no
delegation. Accordingly, they could not have demanded
10% of the market value of the sital value as in terms of
the Circular dated 10.03.2006. They also challenged
the notification on several grounds on merits.
3. The learned Single Judge did not go into the
merits of the dispute. He confined it to a question
whether the BBMP has jurisdiction to demand payment
of the value of 10% of the plot as there was no
notification issued under the Act delegating the power of
the Planning Authority – BBMP. After referring to the
relevant provision of Law and the Judgment of the Apex
Court relied on by both the parties, he was of the view
that the Planning Act is the modern regulatory Act. It
contains the statutory procedures. It prescribes that
the notification be published in the official gazette. The
delegated legislation can take effect only on the
59
publication of notification delegating the power. The
provisions confer power only on the statutory bodies to
exercise the delegated legislation, which is not
challengeable on account of any omission, defect or
irregularity not affecting the merits of the case.
Therefore, Section 76–J(e) of the Planning Act has no
application to the facts of this case. The Judgment of
the Apex Court in B.K. Srinivasan and others Vs.
State of Karnataka and others reported in 1987 ILR
KAR 1867 is not applicable to the facts of this case as
in the said case there was publication of the notification
in the News Paper. Therefore, he was of the view that in
the absence of the notification duly published in the
Official Gazette, the BBMP had no authority to issue the
demand notice and therefore, he quashed the demand
notices. But did not go into the validity of the
notification dated 10.03.2006 on merits. Aggrieved by
the said order, Corporation – BBMP has preferred these
appeals.
60
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailing
the impugned order, contends it is true that the
notification is not duly published in the gazette but it
had in no way affected the interest of these
respondents. The Circular dated 09.06.2010 is based
on the notification dated 10.03.2006, which is duly
published in the official gazette. The notification dated
26.02.2004 it is issued under Section 81 of the
Planning Act. The power of the Planning Authority has
been delegated to BBMP by the State Government.
Non-publication of this notification dated 26.02.2004 is
an omission which is in no way affect the interest of
these respondents. Section 76-J(e) of the Planning Act
makes it clear that no Act is done or proceeding taken
under the said Act shall be questioned on the ground
merely of any omission, defect or irregularity not
affecting the merits of the case. He submits the
notification dated 26.02.2004 is valid, it delegates the
power of the BBMP and the order of the learned Single
Judge is erroneous and requires to be set aside.
61
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents supported the impugned order.
6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival
contentions, the point that arise for our consideration
is:
“Non-publication of the notification dated
26.02.2004 in the official gazette has rendered
the said notification void” ?
7. Under the Planning Act, Section 2(4) defines
Notification. Notification means a notification published
in the official gazette. Section 81 of the Planning Act
deals with :
Delegation of Powers of the Planning Authority reads
as under :
“The State Government may, by notification
and subject to such restrictions and
conditions as may be specified therein,
delegate any of the powers and functions of
the Planning Authority under this Act to any
62
local authority or any officer of the local
authority”.
The Notification referred to in the said section is the
notification defined under Section 2(4) of the Act.
Section 76-J deals with :
Validation of acts and proceedings.—which reads
as under :
“No act done or proceeding taken under this
Act shall be questioned on the ground merely
of.—
(a)…..
(b)….
(c)….
(d)….
(e) any omission, defect or irregularity not
affecting the merits of the case.
In the light of the aforesaid statutory provision, the
question is ‘Whether Section 76-J of the Act, would cure
the defect of non-publication of the notification under
Section 81 of the Act’. Reliance is placed on the
Judgment of the Apex Court in B.K. Srinivasan’s case
63
where this provision fell for consideration. In the said
judgment the Apex Court was considering the act of
non-compliance of Section 13(4) of the Planning Act.
Section 13(4) reads as under :
“S. 13(4) The Planning Authority shall then
publish in the prescribed manner the Master
Plan and the reports as finally approved by
the State Government. The plan and the
reports shall be permanently displayed in the
offices of the Director and the Planning
Authority and a copy shall be kept available
for inspection of the public at the office of the
Planning Authority”.
The prescribed manner is what is prescribed by Rule 33
of the Rules framed under the Planning Act. Rule 33
speaks of Publication of Outline Development Plan and
Regulations published in the official gazette. It is in
that context, the Apex Court held:
“If the entire scheme of the Act and the Rules
is considered as an integral whole it becomes
obvious that what Section 13(4) contemplates
besides permanently displaying the plan and
64
the particulars in the Office of the Director and
Planning Authority and keeping available a
copy for the inspection by the Public at the
Office of the Planning Authority. A Public
Notice to the general public that the plan and
Regulations are permanently displayed and
are available for inspection by the Public.
Such public notice is required to be given by a
publication in the official gazette, that is how
it was done in the said case. The same
appears to be reasonable and a rational
interpretation on Section 13(4) and Rule 33 in
the setting and the scheme.
Therefore, it was held non-compliance of the
requirement of Section 13(4) Rule 33 did not vitiate the
said notification. Before applying those provisions to
the fact in that case, the Apex Court has laid down the
law at para 14. It is held as under :
“Where the parent statute prescribes the mode
of publication or promulgation, there can be no
doubt about the proposition that where a law,
whether parliamentary or subordinate,
demands compliance, those are governed
must be notified directly and reliably of the
65
law and all changes and additions made to it
by various processes. We know that
delegated or subordinate legislation is all
pervasive and that there is hardly any field of
activity where governance by delegated or
subordinate legislative powers is not as
important if not more important, than
governance by Parliamentary legislation. But
unlike Parliamentary legislation which is
publicly made, delegated or subordinate
legislation is often made unobtrusively in the
chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the
Government or other official dignitary. It is
therefore, necessary that subordinate
legislation, in order to take effect, must be
published or promulgated in some suitable
manner, whether such publication or
promulgation is prescribed by the parent
statute or not. It will then take effect from the
date of such publication or promulgation.
Where the parent statute prescribes the mode
of publication or promulgation that mode must
be followed. Where the parent statute is
silent, but the subordinate legislation itself
prescribes the manner of publication, such a
mode of publication may be sufficient, if
66
reasonable. If the subordinate legislation
does not prescribe the mode of publication or
if the subordinate legislation prescribes a
plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it
will take effect only where it is published
through the customarily recognized official
channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some
other reasonable mode of publication”.
8. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear where the
parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or
promulgation that mode has to be followed and such a
requirement is imperative and cannot dispensed with.
In other words it is mandatory. In fact, the said
judgment was considered subsequently by another
Bench of the Apex Court in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper
Boards and another Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P.
and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 634 where : the
importance of the gazette publication has been spelt out
as under:
The object of publication in the gazette is not
merely to give information to the public. The
67
Official Gazette, as the very name indicates, is
an official document. It is published under the
authority of the Government. Publication of an
order or rule in the Gazette is the official
confirmation of the making of such an order or
rule. The version as printed in the gazette is
final. The same order or rule may also be
published in the newspapers or may be
broadcast by radio or television. If a question
arises when was a particular order or rule
made, it is the date of Gazette publication that is
relevant and not the date of publication in a
newspaper or in the media. In other words, the
publication of an order or rule is the official
irrefutable affirmation that a particular order or
rule is made, is made on a particular day and is
made by a particular authority; it is also the
official version of the order or rule. It is a
common practice in courts to refer to the Gazette
whenever there is a doubt about the language
of, or punctuation in, an Act, Rule or Order.
Section 83 of the Evidence Act, says that the
court shall presume the genuineness of the
Gazette. Court will take judicial notice of what
is published therein, unlike the publication in a
newspaper, which has to be proved as a fact as
68
provided in the Evidence Act. If a dispute arises
with respect to the precise language or contents
of a rule or order, and if such rule or order is not
published in the Official Gazette, it would
become necessary to refer to the original itself,
involving a good amount of inconvenience, delay
and unnecessary controversies. It is for this
reason that very often enactments provide that
Rules and/or Regulations and certain type of
orders made thereunder shall be published in
the Official Gazette. To call such a requirement
as a dispensable one, directory requirement, is
in our view unacceptable”.
In fact, reliance was placed in the case of Harla Vs.
State of Rajasthan where a Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court, in the facts of the said case held that the
non-publication of a Resolution in the official gazette
has not vitiated, because the Resolution has been
published in the newspapers and also communicated to
those affected persons and thus, it was well known. In
that context, it was held; failure to publish in the
Government Gazette did not affect the merits of this
69
imposition. Again, reliance is placed on yet another
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal
Board, Sitapur Vs. Prayag Narain Saigal & Firm
Moosaram Bhagwandas reported in 1969 (3) SCR 387
where it was held that non-publication of the resolution
imposing the tax was mere irregularities for the reason
that the inhabitants had no right to file any objections
to it. Further, it held that the inhabitants had clear
notice of the imposition of the tax from the notification
published in the official gazette on August 3, 1957 and
the defect of the non-publication of the special
resolution in the manner prescribed under Section 94
was cured by Sub-Section (3) of Section 135. Again,
that was a case where the affected persons had due
notice.
9. In fact, the aforesaid three judgments were also
noticed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid I.T.C.
Bhadrachalam’s case and held that the said
70
requirement is mandatory and non-compliance of the
said requirement vitiates the order.
10. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, when
we look at the facts of the present case, the Planning
Authority under the Planning Act for the City of
Bangalore is the Bangalore Development Authority. By
a Notification duly published in the official gazette dated
10.03.2006, the State Government wanted to levy,
wanted to collect a certain percentage of the market
value of the site from the builders and site owners if
they have not provided for open space and civic
amenities as stipulated in the Zonal Regulations/Rules.
The said power is exercised by the State Government
under Section 13-E, which empowers the State
Government, to make amendments to regulations.
However, no amount was collected by the State
Government and even by the Planning Authority in
pursuance of the said notification dated 10.03.2006.
By a Circular dated 09.06.2010 which is impugned in
71
this proceedings, the power to recover the said amount
was sought to be conferred on BBMP, as otherwise
under the Planning Act, the BBMP has no power to
collect the said amount. In other words, the State
Government wanted to delegate the said power of the
Planning Authority to the BBMP, which is a local
authority.
Section 81-B deals with : Delegation of Powers of
Planning Authority. Such an act has to be done by a
Notification. The word notification has been defined in
Section 2(4), means a Notification published in the
official Gazette. Therefore, only when the notification
delegating the power of the Planning Authority to BBMP
is duly published in the official Gazette, the said
delegation can take effect. Admittedly, the Notification
dated 26.02.2004 is not duly published in the official
Gazette. Therefore, the said Notification cannot be
considered as Notification under Section 81 of the Act.
The parent Act categorically says, the said power can be
72
delegated only by Notification, means Notification
published in the official Gazette. The said provision is
mandatory.
11. Section 76(J)(e) has no application to cases of acts
which are to be done by the Government, which is
mandatory in nature. If it is only the act which are
directory in nature and if such acts are in the nature of
omission, defect or irregularities not affecting the merits
of the case, then it would not vitiate the said acts. If the
Act to be performed is mandatory in nature Section
76(J) has no application.
12. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified
in quashing the demand notices issued in pursuance of
the Circular dated 09.06.2010 relying on the
Notification dated 26.02.2004 issued under Section 81
of the Planning Act.
73
13. In that view of the matter, we do not see any
merits in these appeals. Accordingly, all the appeals are
Dismissed.
14. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted
even if it is held that the demand was without notice as
the appellants have received amount from the
respondents and had utilized the same for
developmental activities of the City of Bangalore and as
all these properties are situated within the BBMP the
respondents are liable to pay property tax. The said
amount may be permitted to be adjusted towards future
payment of property tax and/or in the alternative the
same may be permitted to be transferred to the BDA,
which is the Planning Authority which has the power to
recover the money in pursuance of the Notification
dated 10.03.2006. The Circular dated 10.03.2006
provides for collection of the aforesaid amount. At para
4 provides for utilization as under :
74
“The amount paid by the private owners in
respect of Zonal area and civic amenities, the
authority shall open a separate account and the
said amount should be utilized for the purpose
of acquisition of the area reserved for park and
open space as per the Master Plan-2015 and
the Authority shall not utilize the said amount
for any other purpose for any reason
whatsoever”.
15. Therefore, the arguments that the amount so
collected and used for developmental activities of the
City of Bangalore is a clear case of misappropriation of
the said funds by the BBMP, because the land owners
have not left the open space and civic amenities in their
land and if they are not willing to leave the said spaces
they are given an option to pay a percentage of market
value of their land, which is to be utilized for acquiring
the land to be developed as park and open space for
their benefit. The said amount cannot be utilized for
any other purpose. Therefore, the BBMP has no
75
authority to appropriate the said amount towards future
tax or for developmental activities of Bangalore City.
16. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge directing them to return the
amount is legal and valid and do not call for
interference.
Learned Government Advocate is directed to take
notice for respondent – State and he is permitted to file
