DODDAKERE TANK BUND SITE OWNERS WELFARE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.20243-20245 OF 2009 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: Doddakere Tank Bund Site Owner’s Welfare and Development Association, A Society registered under the Provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, Having its office at Hotel Dasharh Complex, Opposite Zoo Garden, Mysore 570 010. Represented by its Hon. Secretary. …PETITIONER

(By Shri Abhinav .R, Advocate)

AND:

Mysore District,

Deputy Commissioner Buildings,

Mysore 570 001.

Mysore Sub Division,

Room No.10,

Deputy Commissioner Buildings,

Mysore 570 001.

Authority, J.L.B.Road,

Mysore 570 024,

Represented by its Commissioner. …RESPONDENTS (By Shri H. Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; Shri P.S.Manjunath, Advocate for Respondent No.3) *****

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order/communication of the second respondent dated 25.2.2009 Annexure-U to the writ petition and etc;

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent – Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) Shri P.S.Manjunath, and the learned Additional Advocate General.

3 2. The facts are that the petitioner is a registered society said to comprise of several site owners, who had purchased house sites in the property popularly known as ‘Doddakere Maidana’ totally measuring 145 acres and 13 guntas and is said to be a private property of the then Maharaja of Mysore. With the independence of India, various princely States and Rulers acceded and became a part of the Union of India. There was a treaty of accession between the Government of India and the Maharaja of Mysore. An agreement dated 26.1.1950 was also executed between them making an inventory of the private properties of the Maharaja of Mysore and which were declared to be the absolute properties of the Maharaja of Mysore.

The agreement referred to the ’Doddakere Maidana’ and there was a note appended to the same to the effect that the said item of property would be donated by the Maharaja of Mysore for public purposes. However, the Government had to acquire title to the said extent of land in the manner known to law. There was no registered deed conveying the property to the

4 Government or any of its agencies by the erstwhile Maharaja during his lifetime. It is stated that out of the total extent of 145 acres and 13 guntas, 80 acres of land is being used as exhibition grounds during the Dasara festival by a Committee constituted by the Government. There were sale deeds executed in favour of various persons by the Maharaja of Mysore who had served in the Palace and the petitioners are all such purchasers. The housing layout that is formed comprising sites purchased by the present petitioners is on the southern side of Doddakere Maidana. The sale deeds were executed during the period 1972-73 and they claim to be absolute owners of the several parcels of lands purchased by them. They have got khata certificates made out in their names from the local authorities and have been paying taxes till date. The entire area comprising the layout that is said to have been formed measures about 11 acre 38 guntas. This is outside the scope of 80 acres utilized as exhibition grounds from time to time. The area of land between the exhibition grounds and the layout formed by

5 the petitioners had been auctioned by the income-tax authorities in several parcels to recover the alleged income-tax arrears of the Maharaja. The lands situated on the northern side of the ‘Doddakere Maidana’ is known as “Garike Mala”, which was also auctioned by the income-tax authorities and purchased by the JSS institutions which run several educational institutions in the said area. It is stated that a sketch of the ‘Doddakere Maidana’ is annexed to the petition. A representation was made to the third respondent to sanction the layout plan. The third respondent had advised the several site owners to form themselves into an association and then to file a consolidated application, seeking sanction of layout plan. As this never seem to have been done, on the advice of respondent no.3, namely, Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), the members of the petitioner – association had come together and formed a society and thereafter had submitted the layout plan seeking approval. On the application filed by the petitioner – society, the third respondent had exchanged correspondence

6 with the first respondent in relation to granting of the approval of the plan and the first respondent appears to have informed the third respondent that a portion of the ‘Doddakere Maidana’, where sites were situated, belonged to the Maharaja of Mysore and it is after obtaining clarification as to the ownership of the land to an extent of 11 acre 38 gutnas, the plan was approved by an order dated 12.2.2004. After the grant of sanction, the respondent – authority had called upon the petitioner – society to remit the sum of Rs.9,38,000/- which was in respect of processing the application of the petitioners and thereafter, the respondent - authority had issued a work order to enable the petitioners to carry out the development activities in the layout in accordance with the plan that was sanctioned. 3. However, by a letter dated 5.8.2005, the petitioners were called upon to stop all development activities in view of certain objections having been raised by two individuals that there was overlapping of the properties, which is also part of

7 ‘Doddakere Maidana’ and accordingly, the petitioners were forced to suspend the work. However, after the survey having been carried out, the petitioners’ occupation was held to be in order and a joint letter submitted to withdraw the suspension of the developmental activities and thereafter, the development activity continued. 4. According to the petitioners, at the instigation of the second respondent, respondent no.3, had addressed a letter dated 2.8.2006 to the MUDA claiming that the layout plan submitted could not have been sanctioned as there was a serious dispute about the ownership of the land of the Maharaja and the land in fact, belonged to the Government and hence, the claim of the petitioner – society seeking sanction of the plan ought not to have been granted. The third respondent thereafter had thought it fit to cancel the sanctioned plan. It is that which is questioned in the present petition.

8 contended that the land measuring 145 acre 13 guntas belongs to the State of Karnataka and that under the Treaty signed between the Maharaja of Mysore and the Union of India, the entire extent of land was to be gifted by the Maharaja of Mysore to the State for public purposes. In any event, in the revenue records, the land is treated as kharab as the very name indicates that it is a tank bed and therefore would fall under Section 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and therefore, it could not be claimed as belonging to either Maharaja or by the petitioner – society. It is this primary contention that is being canvassed by the State Government. It is claimed that out of 145 acre and 13guntas, an extent of 80 acre was transferred to the erstwhile Mysore Municipality for the purpose of construction of a Stadium. However, the Municipality was of the opinion that the location is not ideal for construction of a stadium and had never utilized the same. Later, the same has been leased to the Dasara Industrial and Cultural Society through the Public Works Department for

9 conducting exhibitions during the Dasara Festival and the lease has been renewed from time to time. It is also stated that a declaration was filed in respect of the properties on 27.7.1989 before the Deputy Commissioner for Urban Land Ceiling wherein the Maharaja of Mysore had claimed only 21246.76 square metres, out of the total extent of 145 acre 13 guntas, which also came to be negatived by the order of the competent authority and the said extent claimed by the Maharaja has been gifted to the Government of Karnataka and as such, the property cannot be said to be held by the Maharaja nor could he have sold the same in favour of the members of the petitioner – society. It is also claimed that the land is required for the purpose of establishing ‘Neharu Loka’ and that the land cannot be allotted for formation of a residential layout.

10 State Government and it is kharab land, which could not be claimed by any individual and was meant for public purpose, if it is to be no longer a tank bed and can be utilized for any other purpose and as pointed out by the State Government, it was being utilized for various purposes including, as an exhibition ground, etc., and hence was not available for sale by the Maharaja of Mysore and the society could not have purchased it. Since the authority was bound to give credence to the opinion expressed by the Assistant Commissioner, by way of abundant caution, has cancelled the sanctioned layout. It is open for the petitioners to establish their claim independently and they are not precluded from seeking such sanction after the State Government’s claim is set at naught and therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition.

11 public purposes, is belied by the fact that the State Government has notified and acquired the land in several parcels to form a residential layout and have allotted the same to third-parties. Apart from this, a certain portion has been earmarked for a Five Star hotel and therefore, the contention that it is kharab land and belongs to the State is belied by this circumstance.

The learned Counsel would emphasize that in terms of the sanction of layout plan, as granted under Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KUDA Act’, for brevity), which prescribes the guidelines in the competent authority considering the application for sanction of the layout plan. It is on a close compliance with the guidelines therein that sanction had been accorded in favour of the petitioners and there is no provision in law for withdrawing such sanction unless there was a breach of any of the conditions imposed therein.

Insofar as the disputes regarding ownership is concerned, reference is made to the treaty under which the Doddakere

12 Maidana is shown as one of the items of the land which was to be the absolute property of the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, and notwithstanding the note appended to the said item that it would be donated to the State Government for public purposes, has not been carried to its logical conclusions. This was subject matter of several correspondences with the legal department of the State and there is material on record to demonstrate that an opinion has been formed. In the absence of any express conveyance of the property by way of gift deed, it would not be possible for the State to lay claim to the land as a gift from the Maharaja of Mysore and that the Maharaja of Mysore could not be compelled to convey the same by way of gift and this having been placed on record, it cannot be said that the State Government could lay claim to the property nor could the same be claimed as kharab land and being used only for public purposes as it is being utilized for various other purposes. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the cancellation of sanction of the layout plan, only on the Assistant

13 Commissioner expressing a doubt as to the petitioners being in a position to have purchased the land when it did not belong to Maharaja of Mysore was a misleading statement, in the face of other material on record to indicate that there was no transfer of the land in favour of the State Government nor could it be treated as kharab land.

14 the individual members of the petitioner –society. If this aspect of the matter is taken into account, there could not be any impediment in the competent authority having granted sanction of the layout plan if all other material was in order. If once layout plan had been sanctioned on examination of necessary documents in terms of the guidelines prescribed under Section 32 of the KUDA Act, there was no justification in the sanction having been cancelled at the behest of the Assistant Commissioner. If the State seeks to lay claim over the land, it is open for the State Government to initiate appropriate proceedings in law to recover the same not only from the petitioners, but also from other private applicants, who may be in occupation of portions of the Doddakere Maidana and in the absence of which, it would not be possible for the State Government to contend that the layout plan sanctioned in favour of the petitioner ought to be cancelled, only on a partisan opinion that the land belongs to the State Government, without any basis thereof.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The sanction of the layout plan granted in favour of the petitioner is confirmed.

Sd/- JUDGE