M/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

THE HON'Bi_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTAi4isi'AGtt§tii:t.eiii;'  

wan PET;_T_:_:oN No_5.773;-773:4/'200.9"'(V"'L:té¢'-!§E§"_';_  u 

Bggwegn :

1. M/s.Baba Deveiopers Pvt. Ltdj",~...V

Having its registered office  'A
At No.l9~20,  
Hegganahalti Viilage, __  
Kundana Hobli,  ' - '-
Davanaha|iiTaiuE<,   V
Bangaiore Rural' District} ' -
Bangalore I     -.
Rep.by its ~i'~'i"ana~g..i:§g"D_iretigort'  V
P.Sasibhu"s_;Vha:_ri;..V  t  

2. P.Sashib._hushan,  _ "
S/0 Late Chandra.sh'ekha'r Rao
Re:sI'u'ing at PȤQtiN0.19~2O,
H_e§;.g;3__ijiah_a|Ei \/'i'Eia.g_e,«'


' .. W/0 Sasibhushan

 _Age.d about 50 years,
 Residing at Plot No.19--2O

Hegganahalii Viilage,
---Kundana Hobli,


the notification issued by the R2 as per Annexure--M dated
27.1.2009 and Gazette Notification dated 29.1.2009, as per
Anne-xure--N as nuii and void and consequentiy to direct the
respondents to permit the petitioners to use the said'"--!.ands
for residentiai purposes. ~  7

These Writ Petitions having been heard 
for orders on 9*" December 2010, pronounced'the»jsame'on 

16"' December 2010 :   


Petitioners have sough.t”‘~for aAdeclara.t’i’oAif1″”t.h.a–t the.”

Master Plan, 2021 dated 29..,1.”2€009 vide
Annexures–‘K’ and issued by the

2″” responden.t~a;s:-_ it/I”‘gdateo’ 27.1.2009

and the 9999 “Gnaeette::¢0;.4i9Nejt*i»f;’catie_9ii9″‘heated 29.1.2009 vide
Annexurve-_’ N’, asrii;iii!>2’a*n:cl”void in so far as they relate to

the desig_nati’enertheiieiids, bearing Survey Nos.62, 65,

6499102/1, 103/1, 49, 104/1, 105/1,

9104/3%,”1io’a,,sA’0,i~i”101/1, 2 3 and 102/2, totally measuring

2 241 a’crevs:A.1v’c3; guntas, situated at Hegganahalli village,

‘9VvV””,.:iKuridana” Hoblé, Devanahalli Taluk, belonging to the

Wptetitioners for agricultural use.



2. The State Government constituted Bangalore

International Airport Area Pianning Authority

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Authori«tyl,’f’for.,_,

short) on 12.1.1996 and the Master Plan

the Planning Authority was provisionally«approvedv the

State Government and the same w:a.s>:publishe.d”on

September 2004. The afore’m:’entioned_V_ “‘la.’r.1d’s;.:’v4VVwere
converted for non–agr:ic.ultu’ra’lV_0*:’p_urp.oses’H'”i.e., for
residential purposes under__Sectvion:: 9’5.:’of’._’jt.h’*e Karnataka
Land Revenue Act4,’«’,;l.i§65v:{,he_réxinaftierreferred to as ‘the
Revenue Actiiffor.short)_j0i’2.on 22.12.2004, 1.2.2005,

23.2.2005 and Objection Certificate was

issued Karnatai<.a:vPollution Controi Board. However,

the application.,""*fi__l_ed by the petitioners for grant of

7',___approval'for formaftion of residential layout was rejected

_j"_'~.._'_pyissuingvvesjdorsements dated 7.10.05 and 20.10.2005.

p:et'i«tioners made another application for grant of

for formation of residential layout on




25.4.2006. The same aiso came to be rejected on

22.6.2006. Such orders of the rejection of the prayer of

the petitioners for formation of residential |ayout.._’w;er4e

questioned before this Court in

No.7487/2006 and connected matters. ‘_

to be disposed of by observing thus it
” Para~4 : The petitioiieis’ appi«icatiuo’ns’*fuor’ 2′
sanction of layout_pEano/-~-in”d.us~tcria| use-..weEre
required to be co’i”iséide’reci.,’i;.n””t–h’e_AIiight of the
final Master._Pian _to«b_e-n’ot’ifi_ed”‘uVn’d.ger the Act

byvi”‘i”t’ia-exit, Ba::iiigai’ore Iinterinational airport
Pia’-nning’ Planning Authority
for theiiavre’a_in. question constituted under

_i;he,Act not on the basis of the

. _ V”o’*F5’ro.viisi”o.nai Outliiine Development Pian.

Learned Advocate General
2′ that the orders impugned require a
V reiookv in accordance with the ‘Master Plan’

‘Tito be notified by the Planning Authority.

According to the iearned Advocate Generai,

the orders impugned are unsustainabie and

‘L j’:}


if granted reasonable time, the authorities
would reconsider the petitioners’ applications

and consider the petitioner’s application
W.P.No.2881/2006 in accordance
master pian to be notified on or befOi’i’:e:”

01-2009, and pass orders thereagn. ”

Para-6: Recording of”

the learned Advocategiix[.Qenera_|,V._n-ot’i:ii’n’g”
further survives for con.s’iAd.ei”a_tion” in’__th_eise
petitions and arejfacAc*ord*_i~nglyg»..lAd’is_posed of.
Time for compliatncve months
from 30″§’~v3a««n:i’z–ary5i__200:9.”~.T”.i”–.. 2 *0 0

3.v7–._T|’1e is approved by the 2″”

|’€Si3On_dent”‘~.designaAt~iVng…”7 the lands in question for

“V”a_grie’uiitU._tai..i_purApo’se~s”0n 27.1.2009 as per Annexure–

A was issued on 29″‘ January 2009 to

the»..|§fiaster1;i>’lian making certain clarifications as per

20°’*.__VA»nAnexu’rel3’N’ on 29″‘ Lianuary 2009. As

a..aEo’r’ementioned, the petitioners are aggrieved by the


action of the respondent in designating the lands in

question in the Master Plan for agricultural purposes,–.__’

4. It is contended by Sri M.S.Bhagwa_t,£’_:”‘lea’rn:e’di.-.:1_”_

counsel appearing for the petitioners…that the’p*~ro’§.risi:oi1ai ”

Master Plan dated 17.9.2004 cannot bee’nfor.ced”in”Vi:;gml;»1._j

inasmuch as, it is not a Master..::P~!.an in’ the_eyes..;’of~la:w.
According to him, only Vt-he Mats*t(}f_:’*pl’an which is’: finally
approved by the State ‘Go_ye’rna:n:en__¢t::l’l:i$’i..én_tit|ed to be

enforced in law, seconclfcoinitelntionj’of the, learned

counsel is’tha*t.V.;tif:e’V’::§§etit’ion’ers”a’i’e”V:discriminated by the
respondents in designating the lands in

questioryfor 4″”agVriicu’–|tu”raV|””‘purposes, inasmuch as, the

I-‘:ad3*oin”i’ng i»–and’is.,are designated for residential purposes.

vS’t*.Vil’cj’;__|V\.’4.vV’S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for the

..il_l,c’_;.,_petitionersu’elaborating the aforementioned contentions

s¢5.aitttd that BIAAPA is constituted on 12.1.1996 and

therefore, the master Plan should have been


prepared by the Planning Authority i.e., 2″” respondent

herein within two years as mandated under Section 9 of

Karnataka Town Planning & Country Act,

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Act’

that the provisional Master Pian-“was.

published after eight years by theWPla.n.ning:v_~Auth’ori*t’y–;.lvV”

that the Master Plan was fina|ly,.:a’pprovedV_ ‘HState
Government after aboutfour_*°a’nd~:llf_.aVlF..,years°l’rom the
date of publication of theAVV_proyisi_onlal–*M’a*s_tve’r Plan, which
according to belatevdjflwence illegal; that
respondent {certain of the residential

layouts though were formed after

4_p_ub|icat_iongA.of tVh’e_,V:vproyisional Master Plan; that the

the petitioners were designated for

V resid”en’tii’alVpu”r–po=ses and whereas, the lands in question

VT=~..__a’re des”ig.nsa:_ted for agricultural purposes; that the State

.A_G’o_vewrln’ment has not applied its mind while approving

Master Plan proposed by BIAAPA. He further

– M9


_ 9 –

submitted that no objection is also issued by the Airport

Authority of India on 5.4.2005.

Per contra, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, |ear’ng*eg:d.._’

Advocate General taking me through ”

provisions of Planning Act opposed”the’w_rit

contending that none of the residential1’i~ayouts.ivv’l
formed after publication of the”*»provision~aIAM-asterWP|an
are approved as aiieged:_b’y the thatmerely

because conversion orde.r.s.:’_a’re’v.pass’e’d V’i’niiv~–favour of the

petitioners “”” “suAbseq’Vu:ei1t’~.tAo- pLi_”t3%i*cVation of provisionai

Master Plan ‘would; entitle the petitioners

to get _approv’alV_:Vfrorn Athe”‘”Planning Authority; that the

fo:__pern*ii’ssion filed by the petitioners is

to:”‘«b»eVV,considered by the Planning Authority as

‘Viper the Ea._w,-then existing at the time of filing of the

that no ma/ice can be attached against the

.res°p.o’ndAents in publishing the Master Plan; that certain

‘piolrtlions of lands which were already developed prior to


‘rich are ‘

_ H _
Plan is prepared based on fact situation with application

of mind.

7. Before considering the rival contentions’~Vo’f..b_tnve

parties, it is beneficial to refer to certain p–rovisAion’si of’

the Planning Act and Revenue .wof4.’_Tthe_y A

Planning Act reveals that the Authority”

prepare and publish in the pr”es’cribed ‘mVa’nari’er’V’*aWMaster A

Plan for such area anc:l’~~.,sub_rn”i’t’V’t:he:”Sa.me to the State
Government for provisional.._ai’p_’pfov”a.lV”iaffter carrying out

the surve’y”io*fr.:t:.he ‘a:i1je’a’two”Vyears from the date of

deciaratEo–n’o.f the area. If the Master Plan

is notA.prrepaar’ed:V, rptzblishiésd and submitted to the State

I-fly.V.Gove’rn’m.ent”‘by the””i5lanning Authority within the period

of.twoy”yvears,Vf’the State Government may authorise the

_Director of -Town Planning to prepare and publish such

“”=4’pl:a~n.Pri__n the prescribed manner.

Prior to carrying out the survey of the area for

preparing the Master Plan under Section 9 ofg~”‘–the

Planning Act, the Planning Authority shall

declaration of its intention to prepare such p,|_a’v:i”l~–,,..VS”r11A_1Q~=,~J’_ing’7

the boundaries of the entire

included in the Master Plan.,S.u_ch
sent to State Government. has
to notify of such declaravtgior. _i3ffi’;:lAi.ag’i_C’gazette and in
one or more local.V.n’ew3,.V.p–gipjers*suggestions
from the pu oi

Sectionll «:12 Act deals with the

contentsof the Master”-PVAl”an and the contents include

?’for”i’A.;oninQu llll of the land use, such as for

resti–.den_tialvv,:”:-.._,._’l clornmercial, industrial, agricultural

AV”recreat’ion,.._”‘educational and etc., a complete street

indicating major and minor roads, national

hiigh”wia’ys and State highways etc., It shall also include

reserved for parks, playgrounds and other


_ 13 _
recreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings

and institutions and the area reserved for such other

purposes as may be expedient for nevi!”-»:’c*iv”i’c_’

developments and the areas earmarked

development and expansion.

Section 13 of the Planning”Act-A.A_lreve’a|.s

State Government after maklingisuchh”modificatVi’ovyn’s”‘as it it

deems fit shall return .t’h.e Malster.I’j’PlVan_Atothe Planning
Authority, which shall notification

the Maste”r”‘Pla:r:, within 60 days

from theVV7::lalt.eVofVVV If any member of the

public _commu”ni_cate’s in “writing any comment on the

the Planning llll “Authority, the Planning Authority

shcallvv.ccoiris:Vii§.e”r fsuich comments and re–submit the plan

and the to the State Government. After

itit”Silli=eceivi_ng “the plan and the report, the State Government

4′.’_wi|’i’._VVV”g’i’ve its final approval to the plan with such

=.rn’odifications as the Director may advise under sub-


W .

_ (.4-

section (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Thus, the

final approval of the Master Plan will be accorded under

subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act.

Section 14 (1) of the Planning Act clarif’_;sV_,:’tha.t

every land use, every change in iand use

development in the area covered bytthie pilani”scu.ojecti’t0″i’._ 3′

Section 14~A, from the date on dle’c.AlAa*rat«i0l,i~.Ali’r.

intention to prepare the Maste*r.’,:.V’l’-‘lan isrpubEVis:hVedMu’n’der 3′

Section 10(1) shall coiira,,rm,iito*tr.éeprovislioinsVor the

Pianning:iAc’t’,”thfe_ the report as finally
approved zbv the under Section 13(3)

of the P,!a.nnin”‘_cj’ A

_ “itisfa|S’o._re|evVa’nt to note the provisions of Section


of.-_uthe’.’}l<,arnaitaka Land Revenue Act, which reads

A Section 95 : Uses of agricultural land
the procedure for use of



agricultural land for the other purpose:

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) If any occupant of land assessed or held”-T-«b.n”‘~u

for the purpose of agriculture wisheS3V.:’..t”o”~~’.’H:ft4-

divert such land or any part thereof.~~t–o…:a~n:yA–f: .

other purpose he shall (not

anything contained in any Iavéw f’o._r the:_tir.*ie’~ it

being in force) apply 15O’i’..c:[3EnFmi.SSi_§)n._tQ

Deputy Commissioner vyihol”‘may_, subje.C,3t_tfo
the provisions oftt~hi”s_As’ect:{_ioun”‘=«a’vn.d~the rules
made underthis “‘perrn_i..s’sion or
grant it ~.h_e:7may think

¥i5rAoyiic!e_dV;’3.4VVn’ ihrwvithe Deputy
Corvrm*iissionVei’5’fsh’a!lV_:’not..refuse permission for

diyersiion ofnsuch_via«n~’d included in the Master

pnublnished ____ under the Karnataka Town

Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka

1963), if such diversion is in

A»..ryaccord_an’ce with the purpose of land use

specified in respect of the land in such plan;

Xxx xxx xxx”



under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

the petitioners cannot claim that the Planning Authiorigty

i.e., BIAAPA should permit them to form tlf’..’.3.’44’_’lV.’l:’_\_’/’t’.’)’VjLl:t’

pursuant to the conversion orders.

Authority has to strictly proceed

the Planning Act and the Master Pla’n..v_”The

provides for regulation of plan:n’ed_ g_vrow’th.tof land use
and development for n9ialz€li’n.g”–ans.;;j;’e$cevcu’tio_n of the town
planning schemes_Aof__the-“State Having felt
it necessary Saree–..to:i’cr’eate”conditions which
are favouv_raE3i~eAVfo’r*p_ljannin:g~~~and replanning of the urban

and rural ar”eas” in with a view to provide full

__.civic social am–en_i_t_ies for the people in the State, to

Vstopl”u–nco_n’trolled_ development of land due to land

speculation asr;d.a1’profiteering in land, to preserve and

.y%_f.y_.irnproveyexisting recreational facilities and other

contributing towards balanced use of land and

. ‘Tl”to_Md_i5rect the future growth of populated areas in the

sifw” 5

approved by the State Government. Thus, it is amply
clear that the every development and every change in

land use made in between the period betwee.n=..b_thve

provisional Master Plan and the final

conform not only to the provisior:s”‘of it

but also to the final Masterg,P|an,f

the change in land use made”i”n:favour”*of”the petwitioners it

is contrary to the conversion
orders cannot be petitioners,
inasmuch as, not allow any

development’ -‘Master Plan finally


ii$;dnf1i.ttedlyv,’ lllll this matter, the lands in

quest’ioni’__afre’:deV_sigVn.ated for agricultural use not only in

V’.:~,gprovision”a.| iVlast’er Plan, but also in final Master Plan.

,1are._not’.designated for residential use. If it is so,

it”V-4’f:.th-ef=pe’titioners prayer for grant of approval of the layout

ypllanmcannot and will not be granted since the prayer



runs contrary to the Master Plan. As aforementioned,
the petitioners cannot take shelter under the conversion

orders for getting approval of the residential

the Planning Authority. The conversion

subject to final Master Plan. Since”‘th*e. M’asterifP.i_aVndoes if

not provide for forming any gireside»nti’a_l iay.cb”)V_-of’

lands which are designated fo’ri:VV:agricultu_raAlfpuirposel, the

prayer of the petitionejjj-S.ifor.’g’ra’:n*-5.._g.l?vi’plermisvsion to form
layout cannot beAigrante.d._.fl–.. A

13f Court concludes that

the provisiornal *Masjtelr’*«I??:l’a.n..~~can be enforced in law and

any d:.e\.:elop”n:entVa.vi’ activity which has taken place after

ii.V.”prov’i”sVioiial jVl’MyasterV”””Pl«an would be subject to the final

Mas-fer elanAs

1’4vl_”:.So also, this Court does not find any ground to

the contention of the petitioners that they are

,cli.scriminated in the matter of designating their lands for

agricultural purposes. The Master Plan could be

prepared based on fact situation. Mala fides cann:ot»,be

alleged against the respondents. It is Cl§i’l”l’fi.€ld.__l:oily

learned Advocate General that certain l«arid:”

over which the development had,’ al,_re’a7d§/_ta.l<en'*pl.ace_AA

prior to the declaration made'~.._by a,utiio'r;vi.jtl»=,:.,.,,under

Section 10(1) of the are ..d'eSi.gn_£§ted for
residential purposes. in those
areas, the residential come up and
are existing be treated as
residential ._ is nothing on record to
controvert l . sag .

1.5.” i<eepii'ig_,Vin rnind the intention with which the

'A'~PlaAn:i'i«i.,n:g –i.sl"*enacted, the Planning Authority prepares

V the 'plan' interest of general public. There will have

'to, be line somewhere, to mark the zones such

,'_aslf,ag*ricultural zone, residential zone etc., The

l"'~Vl..,,b'ouridaries will be fixed on the basis of actual fact



accordance with law applicable on that day on which

such permission is to be granted. The applicationsigwere

filed by the petitioners after the provisional

which had designated the area in iqiileistidh

agricultural purpose. In view,

permission sought for by the»i’pe.titio’r..ers cozivilld’..;no_tmhiavie

been granted and cannot be

18. The judgment l CHAIRMAN,

moons V1’KAS_”Pf1§4i.DHfi7KARiiN”?:l7$F= mike INDUSTRIAL

COKE & ciHE:4f1:t:ALsi L112; ,fANb”‘o7’HERs ( (2007) 3 sec

705) iaafelied’ learned counsel for the

petitioners also is not a’ppl”[cab|e to the facts of this case,

I-‘i’V’vin’a.s’m”ia.chi;as,”~ the concllusion reached by the Apex Court

ini–theh- was after considering the Madhya

Pradesah |\_iaga”riTatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

rnatters in question have to be decided keeping in

4’_’rijin.d”‘the provisions of Karnataka Town & Country

T iilfilanriing Act. In the said matter of Madhya Pradesh


State, the planning statute does not provide for

enforcement of draft development plan. Whereas, ingthe
matter on hand, as is clear from Section
Planning Act of Karnataka, any conversion”
development made after the
the provisional Master plan shouId'”co’ntorrnh..t:,o’A’the

Master Plan. Which means,l’V””ti?:l_anning’~-AAct*V’sp:ecifically

provides enforcement of_.prov.iVsionvai«..Vi§’iaster Plan.

In view of the above;thi.s.VACoLl’rt”d5oes not find any

ground togrant;that-gVp’ralye.rs oi”‘_’th’ev petitioners. Petitions
fail and



lH’?”.4.”~?rz§k/I1Ig ” ‘

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information