{"id":154241,"date":"2010-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-31T17:13:43","modified_gmt":"2017-01-31T11:43:43","slug":"ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3ANGA:_oR\u00a3\nDATED THIS THE 16\"' DAY OF OECEMBER 201,9\nBEFORE : A\n\nTHE HON'Bi_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTAi4isi'AGtt\u00a7tii:t.eiii;'  \n\nwan PET;_T_:_:oN No_5.773;-773:4\/'200.9\"'(V\"'L:t\u00e9\u00a2'-!\u00a7E\u00a7\"_';_  u \n\nBggwegn :\n\n1. M\/s.Baba Deveiopers Pvt. Ltdj\",~...V\n\nHaving its registered office  'A\nAt No.l9~20,  \nHegganahalti Viilage, __  \nKundana Hobli,  ' - '-\nDavanaha|iiTaiuE<,   V\nBangaiore Rural' District} ' -\nBangalore I     -.\nRep.by its ~i'~'i"ana~g..i:\u00a7g"D_iretigort'  V\nP.Sasibhu"s_;Vha:_ri;..V  t  \n\n2. P.Sashib._hushan,  _ "\nS\/0 Late Chandra.sh'ekha'r Rao\nRe:sI'u'ing at P\u00bb\u00a7QtiN0.19~2O,\nH_e\u00a7;.g;3__ijiah_a|Ei \\\/'i'Eia.g_e,\u00ab'\n\n .iiA_nasuya\n\n' .. W\/0 Sasibhushan\n\n _Age.d about 50 years,\n Residing at Plot No.19--2O\n\nHegganahalii Viilage,\n---Kundana Hobli,\n\n\n\n-3-\n\nthe notification issued by the R2 as per Annexure--M dated\n27.1.2009 and Gazette Notification dated 29.1.2009, as per\nAnne-xure--N as nuii and void and consequentiy to direct the\nrespondents to permit the petitioners to use the said'\"--!.ands\nfor residentiai purposes. ~  7\n\nThese Writ Petitions having been heard \nfor orders on 9*\" December 2010, pronounced'the\u00bbjsame'on \n\n16\"' December 2010 :   \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Petitioners have sough.t”‘~for aAdeclara.t’i’oAif1″”t.h.a–t the.”<\/p>\n
Master Plan, 2021 dated  29..,1.”2\u20ac009 vide
\nAnnexures–‘K’ and  issued by the<\/p>\n
2″” responden.t~a;s:-_ it\/I”‘gdateo’ 27.1.2009<\/p>\n
and the 9999 “Gnaeette::\u00a20;.4i9Nejt*i\u00bbf;’catie_9ii9″‘heated 29.1.2009 vide
\nAnnexurve-_’ N’, asrii;iii!>2’a*n:cl”void in so far as they relate to<\/p>\n
the desig_nati’enertheiieiids, bearing Survey Nos.62, 65,<\/p>\n
 6499102\/1, 103\/1, 49, 104\/1, 105\/1,<\/p>\n
9104\/3%,”1io’a,,sA’0,i~i”101\/1, 2 3 and 102\/2, totally measuring<\/p>\n
2 241 a’crevs:A.1v’c3; guntas, situated at Hegganahalli village,<\/p>\n
‘9VvV””,.:iKuridana” Hobl\u00e9, Devanahalli Taluk, belonging to the<\/p>\n
Wptetitioners for agricultural use.<\/p>\n
in\/’<\/p>\n
-4-<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
2. The State Government constituted Bangalore<\/p>\n
International Airport Area Pianning Authority<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Authori\u00abtyl,’f’for.,_,<\/p>\n
short) on 12.1.1996 and the Master Plan <\/p>\n
the Planning Authority was provisionally\u00abapprovedv the <\/p>\n
State Government and the same w:a.s>:publishe.d”on <\/p>\n
September 2004. The afore’m:’entioned_V_ “‘la.’r.1d’s;.:’v4VVwere
\nconverted for non–agr:ic.ultu’ra’lV_0*:’p_urp.oses’H'”i.e., for
\nresidential purposes under__Sectvion:: 9’5.:’of’._’jt.h’*e Karnataka
\nLand Revenue Act4,’\u00ab’,;l.i\u00a765v:{,he_r\u00e9xinaftierreferred to as ‘the
\nRevenue Actiiffor.short)_j0i’2.on 22.12.2004, 1.2.2005,<\/p>\n
23.2.2005 and  Objection Certificate was<\/p>\n
issued Karnatai<.a:vPollution Controi Board. However,<\/p>\n
the application.,""*fi__l_ed by the petitioners for grant of<\/p>\n
7',___approval'for formaftion of residential layout was rejected<\/p>\n
_j"_'~.._'_pyissuingvvesjdorsements dated 7.10.05 and 20.10.2005.<\/p>\n
  p:et'i\u00abtioners made another application for grant of<\/p>\n
 for formation of residential layout on<\/p>\n
9%.\n<\/p>\n
E\/,.:\u00bb\u00abi,\u00bb\/’<\/p>\n
W5″\n<\/p>\n
25.4.2006. The same aiso came to be rejected on<\/p>\n
22.6.2006. Such orders of the rejection of the prayer of<\/p>\n
the petitioners for formation of residential |ayout.._’w;er4e<\/p>\n
questioned before this Court in  <\/p>\n
No.7487\/2006 and connected matters. ‘_  <\/p>\n
to be disposed of by observing thus  it
\n” Para~4 : The petitioiieis’ appi\u00abicatiuo’ns’*fuor’ 2′
\nsanction of layout_pEano\/-~-in”d.us~tcria| use-..weEre
\nrequired to be co’i”is\u00e9ide’reci.,’i;.n””t–h’e_AIiight of the
\nfinal Master._Pian _to\u00abb_e-n’ot’ifi_ed”‘uVn’d.ger the Act<\/p>\n
byvi”‘i”t’ia-exit, Ba::iiigai’ore Iinterinational airport
\nPia’-nning’  Planning Authority
\nfor theiiavre’a_in. question constituted under<\/p>\n
_i;he,Act not on the basis of the<\/p>\n
.  _ V”o’*F5’ro.viisi”o.nai Outliiine Development Pian.<\/p>\n
 Learned Advocate General
\n2′  that the orders impugned require a
\nV reiookv in accordance with the ‘Master Plan’<\/p>\n
 ‘Tito be notified by the Planning Authority.<\/p>\n
 According to the iearned Advocate Generai,<\/p>\n
the orders impugned are unsustainabie and<\/p>\n
‘L j’:}<\/p>\n
iv<\/p>\n
052<\/span>
\nif granted reasonable time, the authorities
\nwould reconsider the petitioners’ applications<\/p>\n
and consider the petitioner’s application
\nW.P.No.2881\/2006 in accordance
\nmaster pian to be notified on or befOi’i’:e:”  <\/p>\n
01-2009, and pass orders thereagn.  ”\n<\/p>\n
Para-6: Recording   of”\n<\/p>\n
the learned Advocategiix[.Qenera_|,V._n-ot’i:ii’n’g”
\nfurther survives for con.s’iAd.ei”a_tion” in’__th_eise
\npetitions and arejfacAc*ord*_i~nglyg\u00bb..lAd’is_posed of.
\nTime for compliatncve  months
\nfrom 30″\u00a7’~v3a\u00ab\u00abn:i’z–ary5i__200:9.”~.T”.i”–.. 2 *0 0<\/p>\n
3.v7–._T|’1e   is approved by the 2″”\n<\/p>\n
|’\u20acSi3On_dent”‘~.designaAt~iVng…”7 the lands in question for<\/p>\n
“V”a_grie’uiitU._tai..i_purApo’se~s”0n 27.1.2009 as per Annexure–<\/p>\n
A  was issued on 29″‘ January 2009 to<\/p>\n
the\u00bb..|\u00a7fiaster1;i>’lian making certain clarifications as per<\/p>\n
20\u00b0’*.__VA\u00bbnAnexu’rel3’N’ on 29″‘ Lianuary 2009. As<\/p>\n
a..aEo’r’ementioned, the petitioners are aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
if”\n<\/p>\n
action of the respondent in designating the lands in<\/p>\n
question in the Master Plan for agricultural purposes,–.__’<\/p>\n
4. It is contended by Sri M.S.Bhagwa_t,\u00a3’_:”‘lea’rn:e’di.-.:1_”_<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the petitioners…that the’p*~ro’\u00a7.risi:oi1ai  ”<\/p>\n
Master Plan dated 17.9.2004 cannot bee’nfor.ced”in”Vi:;gml;\u00bb1._j<\/p>\n
inasmuch as, it is not a Master..::P~!.an in’ the_eyes..;’of~la:w.
\nAccording to him, only Vt-he Mats*t(}f_:’*pl’an which is’: finally
\napproved by the State ‘Go_ye’rna:n:en__\u00a2t::l’l:i$’i..\u00e9n_tit|ed to be<\/p>\n
enforced in law,  seconclfcoinitelntionj’of the, learned<\/p>\n
counsel is’tha*t.V.;tif:e’V’::\u00a7\u00a7etit’ion’ers”a’i’e”V:discriminated by the
\nrespondents in  designating the lands in<\/p>\n
questioryfor 4″”agVriicu’–|tu”raV|””‘purposes, inasmuch as, the<\/p>\n
I-‘:ad3*oin”i’ng i\u00bb–and’is.,are designated for residential purposes.<\/p>\n
 vS’t*.Vil’cj’;__|V\\.’4.vV’S.Bhagwat, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
..il_l,c’_;.,_petitionersu’elaborating the aforementioned contentions<\/p>\n
 s\u00a25.aitttd that BIAAPA is constituted on 12.1.1996 and<\/p>\n
therefore, the master Plan should have been<\/p>\n
\/)3
\nt<\/p>\n
“go
\nprepared by the Planning Authority i.e., 2″” respondent<\/p>\n
herein within two years as mandated under Section 9 of<\/p>\n
Karnataka Town Planning & Country Act,<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Planning Act’ <\/p>\n
that the provisional Master Pian-“was.<\/p>\n
published after eight years by theWPla.n.ning:v_~Auth’ori*t’y–;.lvV”<\/p>\n
that the Master Plan was fina|ly,.:a’pprovedV_  ‘HState
\nGovernment after aboutfour_*\u00b0a’nd~:llf_.aVlF..,years\u00b0l’rom the
\ndate of publication of theAVV_proyisi_onlal–*M’a*s_tve’r Plan, which
\naccording to belatevdjflwence illegal; that
\nrespondent  {certain of the residential<\/p>\n
layouts though   were formed after<\/p>\n
4_p_ub|icat_iongA.of tVh’e_,V:vproyisional Master Plan; that the<\/p>\n
  the petitioners were designated for<\/p>\n
 V resid”en’tii’alVpu”r–po=ses and whereas, the lands in question<\/p>\n
VT=~..__a’re des”ig.nsa:_ted for agricultural purposes; that the State<\/p>\n
 .A_G’o_vewrln’ment has not applied its mind while approving<\/p>\n
Master Plan proposed by BIAAPA. He further<\/p>\n
– M9<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n3,<\/p>\n
_ 9 –\n<\/p>\n
submitted that no objection is also issued by the Airport<\/p>\n
Authority of India on 5.4.2005.\n<\/p>\n
Per contra, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, |ear’ng*eg:d.._’<\/p>\n
Advocate General taking me through   ”\n<\/p>\n
provisions of Planning Act opposed”the’w_rit <\/p>\n
contending that none of the residential1’i~ayouts.ivv’l
\nformed after publication of the”*\u00bbprovision~aIAM-asterWP|an
\nare approved as aiieged:_b’y the  thatmerely<\/p>\n
because conversion orde.r.s.:’_a’re’v.pass’e’d V’i’niiv~–favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioners “”” “suAbseq’Vu:ei1t’~.tAo- pLi_”t3%i*cVation of provisionai<\/p>\n
Master Plan ‘would; entitle the petitioners<\/p>\n
to get _approv’alV_:Vfrorn Athe”‘”Planning Authority; that the<\/p>\n
fo:__pern*ii’ssion filed by the petitioners is<\/p>\n
to:”‘\u00abb\u00bbeVV,considered by the Planning Authority as<\/p>\n
‘Viper the Ea._w,-then existing at the time of filing of the<\/p>\n
 that no ma\/ice can be attached against the<\/p>\n
 .res\u00b0p.o’ndAents in publishing the Master Plan; that certain<\/p>\n
 ‘piolrtlions of lands which were already developed prior to<\/p>\n
ix
\n=4<\/p>\n
‘rich are ‘<\/p>\n
_ H _
\nPlan is prepared based on fact situation with application<\/p>\n
of mind.\n<\/p>\n
7. Before considering the rival contentions’~Vo’f..b_tnve<\/p>\n
parties, it is beneficial to refer to certain p–rovisAion’si of’<\/p>\n
the Planning Act and Revenue .wof4.’_Tthe_y A<\/p>\n
Planning Act reveals that the  Authority”<\/p>\n
prepare and publish in the pr”es’cribed ‘mVa’nari’er’V’*aWMaster A<\/p>\n
Plan for such area anc:l’~~.,sub_rn”i’t’V’t:he:”Sa.me to the State
\nGovernment for provisional.._ai’p_’pfov”a.lV”iaffter carrying out<\/p>\n
the surve’y”io*fr.:t:.he ‘a:i1je’a’two”Vyears from the date of<\/p>\n
deciaratEo–n’o.f the area. If the Master Plan<\/p>\n
is notA.prrepaar’ed:V, rptzblishi\u00e9sd and submitted to the State<\/p>\n
I-fly.V.Gove’rn’m.ent”‘by the””i5lanning Authority within the period<\/p>\n
of.twoy”yvears,Vf’the State Government may authorise the<\/p>\n
 _Director of -Town Planning to prepare and publish such<\/p>\n
“”=4’pl:a~n.Pri__n the prescribed manner.<\/p>\n
Prior to carrying out the survey of the area for<\/p>\n
preparing the Master Plan under Section 9 ofg~”‘–the<\/p>\n
Planning Act, the Planning Authority shall<\/p>\n
declaration of its intention to prepare such p,|_a’v:i”l~–,,..VS”r11A_1Q~=,~J’_ing’7<\/p>\n
the boundaries of the entire <\/p>\n
included in the Master Plan.,S.u_ch
\nsent to State Government.  has
\nto notify of such declaravtgior. _i3ffi’;:lAi.ag’i_C’gazette and in
\none or more local.V.n’ew3,.V.p–gipjers*suggestions
\nfrom the pu oi <\/p>\n
Sectionll \u00ab:12  Act deals with the<\/p>\n
contentsof the Master”-PVAl”an and the contents include<\/p>\n
?’for”i’A.;oninQu llll of the land use, such as for<\/p>\n
resti–.den_tialvv,:”:-.._,._’l clornmercial, industrial, agricultural<\/p>\n
AV”recreat’ion,.._”‘educational and etc., a complete street<\/p>\n
 indicating major and minor roads, national<\/p>\n
 hiigh”wia’ys and State highways etc., It shall also include<\/p>\n
  reserved for parks, playgrounds and other<\/p>\n
\/3<\/p>\n
_ 13 _
\nrecreational uses, public open spaces, public buildings<\/p>\n
and institutions and the area reserved for such other<\/p>\n
purposes as may be expedient for nevi!”-\u00bb:’c*iv”i’c_’<\/p>\n
developments and the areas earmarked<\/p>\n
development and expansion.\n<\/p>\n
Section 13 of the Planning”Act-A.A_lreve’a|.s <\/p>\n
State Government after maklingisuchh”modificatVi’ovyn’s”‘as it it<\/p>\n
deems fit shall return .t’h.e Malster.I’j’PlVan_Atothe Planning
\nAuthority, which shall  notification<\/p>\n
the Maste”r”‘Pla:r:,  within 60 days<\/p>\n
from theVV7::lalt.eVofVVV If any member of the<\/p>\n
public _commu”ni_cate’s in “writing any comment on the<\/p>\n
the Planning llll “Authority, the Planning Authority<\/p>\n
shcallvv.ccoiris:Vii\u00a7.e”r fsuich comments and re–submit the plan<\/p>\n
 and the  to the State Government. After<\/p>\n
itit”Silli=eceivi_ng “the plan and the report, the State Government<\/p>\n
4′.’_wi|’i’._VVV”g’i’ve its final approval to the plan with such<\/p>\n
=.rn’odifications as the Director may advise under sub-<\/p>\n
:”‘5\\’\\
\n\/’<\/p>\n
W .\n<\/p>\n
_ (.4-\n<\/p>\n
section (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act. Thus, the<\/p>\n
final approval of the Master Plan will be accorded under<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 13 of the Planning Act.<\/p>\n
Section 14 (1) of the Planning Act clarif’_;sV_,:’tha.t<\/p>\n
every land use, every change in iand use<\/p>\n
development in the area covered bytthie pilani”scu.ojecti’t0″i’._ 3′<\/p>\n
Section 14~A, from the date on  dle’c.AlAa*rat\u00abi0l,i~.Ali’r.<\/p>\n
intention to prepare the Maste*r.’,:.V’l’-‘lan isrpubEVis:hVedMu’n’der 3′<\/p>\n
Section 10(1) shall coiira,,rm,iito*tr.\u00e9eprovislioinsVor the<\/p>\n
Pianning:iAc’t’,”thfe_  the report as finally
\napproved zbv the  under Section 13(3)<\/p>\n
of the P,!a.nnin”‘_cj’  A<\/p>\n
 _ “itisfa|S’o._re|evVa’nt to note the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
V(thus:”\n<\/p>\n
of.-_uthe’.’}l<,arnaitaka Land Revenue Act, which reads<\/p>\n
A  Section 95 : Uses of agricultural land
\n  the procedure for use of<\/p>\n
if\/S)"\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-;5_<\/p>\n
agricultural land for the other purpose:<\/p>\n
(1) xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
(2) If any occupant of land assessed or held”-T-\u00abb.n”‘~u<\/p>\n
for the purpose of agriculture wisheS3V.:’..t”o”~~’.’H:ft4- <\/p>\n
divert such land or any part thereof.~~t–o…:a~n:yA–f: .<\/p>\n
other purpose he shall (not <\/p>\n
anything contained in any Iav\u00e9w f’o._r the:_tir.*ie’~ it <\/p>\n
being in force) apply 15O’i’..c:[3EnFmi.SSi_\u00a7)n._tQ  <\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner vyihol”‘may_, subje.C,3t_tfo
\nthe provisions oftt~hi”s_As’ect:{_ioun”‘=\u00aba’vn.d~the rules
\nmade underthis “‘perrn_i..s’sion or
\ngrant it  ~.h_e:7may think<\/p>\n
 \u00a5i5rAoyiic!e_dV;’3.4VVn’  ihrwvithe Deputy
\nCorvrm*iissionVei’5’fsh’a!lV_:’not..refuse permission for<\/p>\n
diyersiion ofnsuch_via\u00abn~’d included in the Master<\/p>\n
 pnublnished ____ under the Karnataka Town<\/p>\n
   Planning Act, 1961 (Karnataka<\/p>\n
 1963), if such diversion is in<\/p>\n
A\u00bb..ryaccord_an’ce with the purpose of land use<\/p>\n
specified in respect of the land in such plan;<\/p>\n
Xxx xxx xxx”\n<\/p>\n
if<\/p>\n
LLLA37VVU<\/p>\n
under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,<\/p>\n
the petitioners cannot claim that the Planning Authiorigty<\/p>\n
i.e., BIAAPA should permit them to form tlf’..’.3.’44’_’lV.’l:’_\\_’\/’t’.’)’VjLl:t’<\/p>\n
pursuant to the conversion orders.\n<\/p>\n
Authority has to strictly proceed  <\/p>\n
the Planning Act and the Master Pla’n..v_”The   <\/p>\n
provides for regulation of plan:n’ed_ g_vrow’th.tof land use
\nand development for n9ialz\u20acli’n.g”–ans.;;j;’e$cevcu’tio_n of the town
\nplanning schemes_Aof__the-“State  Having felt
\nit necessary Saree–..to:i’cr’eate”conditions which
\nare favouv_raE3i~eAVfo’r*p_ljannin:g~~~and replanning of the urban<\/p>\n
and rural ar”eas” in with a view to provide full<\/p>\n
__.civic  social am–en_i_t_ies for the people in the State, to<\/p>\n
Vstopl”u–nco_n’trolled_ development of land due to land<\/p>\n
 speculation asr;d.a1’profiteering in land, to preserve and<\/p>\n
.y%_f.y_.irnproveyexisting recreational facilities and other<\/p>\n
  contributing towards balanced use of land and<\/p>\n
. ‘Tl”to_Md_i5rect the future growth of populated areas in the<\/p>\n
sifw” 5<\/p>\n
approved by the State Government. Thus, it is amply
\nclear that the every development and every change in<\/p>\n
land use made in between the period betwee.n=..b_thve<\/p>\n
provisional Master Plan and the final <\/p>\n
conform not only to the provisior:s”‘of  it<\/p>\n
but also to the final Masterg,P|an,f <\/p>\n
the change in land use made”i”n:favour”*of”the petwitioners it<\/p>\n
is contrary to the conversion
\norders cannot be   petitioners,
\ninasmuch as, not allow any<\/p>\n
development’  -‘Master Plan finally<\/p>\n
approved.\n<\/p>\n
 ii$;dnf1i.ttedlyv,’ lllll  this matter, the lands in<\/p>\n
 quest’ioni’__afre’:deV_sigVn.ated for agricultural use not only in<\/p>\n
V’.:~,gprovision”a.| iVlast’er Plan, but also in final Master Plan.<\/p>\n
,1are._not’.designated for residential use. If it is so,<\/p>\n
it”V-4’f:.th-ef=pe’titioners prayer for grant of approval of the layout<\/p>\n
ypllanmcannot and will not be granted since the prayer<\/p>\n
s},<\/p>\n
i”v’<\/p>\n
runs contrary to the Master Plan. As aforementioned,
\nthe petitioners cannot take shelter under the conversion<\/p>\n
orders for getting approval of the residential <\/p>\n
the Planning Authority. The conversion<\/p>\n
subject to final Master Plan. Since”‘th*e. M’asterifP.i_aVndoes if<\/p>\n
not provide for forming any gireside\u00bbnti’a_l iay.cb”)V_-of’<\/p>\n
lands which are designated fo’ri:VV:agricultu_raAlfpuirposel, the<\/p>\n
prayer of the petitionejjj-S.ifor.’g’ra’:n*-5.._g.l?vi’plermisvsion to form
\nlayout cannot beAigrante.d._.\ufb02–..  A<\/p>\n
13f Court concludes that<\/p>\n
the provisiornal *Masjtelr’*\u00abI??:l’a.n..~~can be enforced in law and<\/p>\n
any d:.e\\.:elop”n:entVa.vi’ activity which has taken place after<\/p>\n
ii.V.”prov’i”sVioiial jVl’MyasterV”””Pl\u00aban would be subject to the final<\/p>\n
Mas-fer elanAs <\/p>\n
1’4vl_”:.So also, this Court does not find any ground to<\/p>\n
  the contention of the petitioners that they are<\/p>\n
   ,cli.scriminated in the matter of designating their lands for<\/p>\n
agricultural purposes. The Master Plan could be<\/p>\n
prepared based on fact situation. Mala fides cann:ot\u00bb,be<\/p>\n
alleged against the respondents. It is Cl\u00a7i’l”l’\ufb01.\u20acld.__l:oily<\/p>\n
learned Advocate General that certain  l\u00abarid:”  <\/p>\n
over which the development had,’ al,_re’a7d\u00a7\/_ta.l<en'*pl.ace_AA<\/p>\n
prior to the declaration made'~.._by  a,utiio'r;vi.jtl\u00bb=,:.,.,,under <\/p>\n
Section 10(1) of the  are ..d'eSi.gn_\u00a3\u00a7ted for
\nresidential purposes.  in those
\nareas, the residential come up and
\nare existing  be treated as
\nresidential ._ is nothing on record to
\ncontrovert l  . sag  .\n<\/p>\n
1.5.” i<eepii'ig_,Vin rnind the intention with which the<\/p>\n
'A'~PlaAn:i'i\u00abi.,n:g  –i.sl"*enacted, the Planning Authority prepares<\/p>\n
 V the 'plan'   interest of general public. There will have<\/p>\n
 'to, be  line somewhere, to mark the zones such<\/p>\n
,'_aslf,ag*ricultural zone, residential zone etc., The<\/p>\n
l"'~Vl..,,b'ouridaries will be fixed on the basis of actual fact<\/p>\n
'\ufb01x
\n'\\<\/p>\n
l'i""\n<\/p>\n
accordance with law applicable on that day on which<\/p>\n
such permission is to be granted. The applicationsigwere<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioners after the provisional <\/p>\n
which had designated the area in iqiileistidh<\/p>\n
agricultural purpose. In view, <\/p>\n
permission sought for by the\u00bbi’pe.titio’r..ers cozivilld’..;no_tmhiavie <\/p>\n
been granted and cannot be <\/p>\n
18. The judgment  l  CHAIRMAN,<\/p>\n
moons V1’KAS_”Pf1\u00a74i.DH\ufb017KARiiN”?:l7$F= mike INDUSTRIAL<\/p>\n
COKE & ciHE:4f1:t:ALsi L112; ,fANb”‘o7’HERs ( (2007) 3 sec\n<\/p>\n
705) iaafelied’  learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners also is not a’ppl”[cab|e to the facts of this case,<\/p>\n
I-‘i’V’vin’a.s’m”ia.chi;as,”~ the concllusion reached by the Apex Court<\/p>\n
ini–theh- was after considering the Madhya<\/p>\n
 Pradesah |\\_iaga”riTatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.<\/p>\n
rnatters in question have to be decided keeping in<\/p>\n
4’_’rijin.d”‘the provisions of Karnataka Town & Country<\/p>\n
T iil\ufb01lanriing Act. In the said matter of Madhya Pradesh<\/p>\n
..27..\n<\/p>\n
State, the planning statute does not provide for<\/p>\n
enforcement of draft development plan. Whereas, ingthe
\nmatter on hand, as is clear from Section
\nPlanning Act of Karnataka, any conversion”
\ndevelopment made after the
\nthe provisional Master plan shouId'”co’ntorrnh..t:,o’A’the<\/p>\n
Master Plan. Which means,l’V””ti?:l_anning’~-AAct*V’sp:ecifically<\/p>\n
provides enforcement of_.prov.iVsionvai\u00ab..Vi\u00a7’iaster Plan.<\/p>\n
In view of the above;thi.s.VACoLl’rt”d5oes not find any<\/p>\n
ground togrant;that-gVp’ralye.rs oi”‘_’th’ev petitioners. Petitions
\nfail and  <\/p>\n
  sag;\n<\/p>\n
Judge<\/p>\n
  lH’?”.4.”~?rz\u00a7k\/I1Ig ” ‘<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010 Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3ANGA:_oR\u00a3 DATED THIS THE 16″‘ DAY OF OECEMBER 201,9 BEFORE : A THE HON’Bi_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTAi4isi’AGtt\u00a7tii:t.eiii;’ wan PET;_T_:_:oN No_5.773;-773:4\/’200.9″‘(V”‘L:t\u00e9\u00a2’-!\u00a7E\u00a7”_’;_ u Bggwegn : 1. M\/s.Baba Deveiopers Pvt. Ltdj”,~…V […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2861,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010"},"wordCount":2861,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010","name":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport ... on 16 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-31T11:43:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-baba-developers-pvt-ltd-vs-bangalore-international-airport-on-16-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Baba Developers Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore International Airport … on 16 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}