Karnataka Town Planning Act | Land Reservation For Public Use Lapses If Not Acquired Within 5 Yrs: High Court

The Karnataka High Court has declared that land reserved for public use such as parks, cemeteries, etc., in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, loses such reservation if not acquired within five years.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that when such designation lapses, if the land owner wants to make use of the land for a different purpose than for which it was designated, then they would have to apply under Section 69(3) of the KTCP Act for consideration of new land use proposed by the owner, which would be considered based on the surrounding developments after inviting objections from the general public and would be considered in a meeting of the Authority.

It added “Such an application cannot be said to be one under Section 14A for change of land use since such an application is restricted to the circumstances stated under Section 14A of the KTCP Act.”

The bench made these observations while allowing a plea filed by Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji, represented through his legal heirs.

The petitioners claimed that they were the owners of the land situated at Oobarpad Village, Ulsoor Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk, and of Jayamahal Main Road, Bengaluru. It was submitted that in the revised Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) of 2011 which was approved on 05.01.1995, the aforesaid land had been earmarked for usage for residential purposes.

However, it was argued that in the Revised Master Plan 2015, which was approved on 25.06.2007, the demarcation was changed and the land was reserved for parks and green spaces, sports/playgrounds, cemeteries/burial grounds.

It was submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) could not have reserved the land for parks and open spaces when it has already been put to use for a commercial purpose as a Hotel, which the BDA ought to be aware of.

It was argued that the reservation of the land of the petitioner having been made for parks and open spaces, had lapsed after a period of five years in 2012 and therefore, the reservation no longer held good and was required to be quashed.

However, the BDA opposed the plea saying that mere reservation of land made for parks and open spaces would not come in the way of the petitioners making use of the said land given the general exception granted, which stated that any permission granted for use of the land for a particular purpose before the Revised Master Plan would be protected and such usage could continue.

The Revised Master Plan being prospective in nature would not affect the petitioners adversely, it was argued. 

Further, it was said that the petitioners did not object to the demarcation and/or classification made in the draft Revised Master Plan, when the draft was published and as such, the petitioners cannot raise the issue before Court in a writ petition.

It was argued that it is only when the State wishes to make use of the property for a public purpose including for establishment of park etc, that it is required to acquire the land, and if the State does not want to establish such a park or open spaces there was no requirement to acquire the land.

Irrespective of whether the land is acquired or not the classification in the Revised Master Plan will continue and the petitioners cannot challenge it, since such reservation has been made for orderly growth of the city of Bengaluru, the BDA argued. 

The bench noted that the master plans would contain both developments which have already occurred and the developments which have been proposed.

It held that the developments which have already occurred, cannot be no changed since any master plan is prospective and proposes to develop the area in a particular manner, and in the present case, when any master plan is brought into force, it could contain the proposal for future developments and their manner.

It observed that Section 69(2) of the KTCP Act mandated that if the land designated for a public purpose under Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the KTCP Act was not acquired either by agreement or initiating proceedings under the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, within five years from the date of the publication of the master plan, the designation shall be deemed to have lapsed. 

The bench held “In the present case, the master plan came into force on 25.06.2007, when the approval from the government was received and the same came to be published. Thus, the five-year period prescribed under Subsection (2) of Section 69 of the KTCP Act would commence from 25.06.2007 and end by 24.06.2012. If no acquisition is made in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 69 of the KTCP Act, then the designation and/or the reservation are deemed to have lapsed, and as such, the designation made in the master plan would not continue to be binding on the owner of the land.”

Further, the bench clarified that on lapse of acquisition after five years, it is not necessary that any particular application is to be made by the land owner/s for the development of the land or for it to be rejected, or for the land owner to approach the Court for invoking the deeming provision under Subsection (2) of Section 69 of the KTCP Act.

Accordingly, it allowed the plea.

Appearance:

Advocate Mahesh Arkalgud for petitioners.

Advocate M.B.Prabhakar for R2.

HCGP Sarita Kulkarni for R1.

Advocate Namitha Mahesh for Advocate S.N. Prashanth Chandra for R3 AND R4.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

Case Title: Late H.H. Jyotendra Sinhji Vikramsinhji & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 1678 OF 2015.

Click Here To Read/Download Order