Govt can't deny nod for layout plan if there is no agreement on alternative sites: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court said that the state government cannot insist that the land owner should not develop their land if there is no agreement entered between the development authority and the land owners with regards to allotment of sites in lieu of compensation. A division bench comprising Justices R Devdas and G Basavaraja said this while dismissing a writ appeal filed by the Urban Development Department and Deputy Commissioner of Vijayapura district.

Two businessmen and agriculturists, Mahaveer and Anil from Vijayapura district had approached the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority (VUDA), seeking approval of the layout plan in their favour. VUDA declined to approve the sanction plan on the ground that it had proposed a development scheme for a residential layout in August 2010 under sections 17(1) and 17(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987.

On July 6, 2023, a single bench allowed the petition filed by the land owners and directed the authority to consider the representation within eight weeks. The state government moved an appeal contending that in terms of section 35 of the 1987 Act, the authority is empowered to enter into an agreement with the owner of any land, with prior approval of the state. This would enable the authority to allot developed sites to the owner of the land in lieu of compensation determined in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was further submitted that the single bench could not have held that the scheme had lapsed as there was no such provision under the 1987 Act.

The division bench noted that though lapsing provision under section 27 of the 1987 Act is not akin to the provision under the BDA Act, which has a five years period, 14 years have lapsed since the issuance of notification pertaining to the proposal of the scheme. The bench said that the state cannot contend that the authority should not permit the land owners to develop their lands when no preliminary notification is issued.

“In the light of the above, we find that the application filed by the contesting respondents/writ petitioners seeking approval of layout plan at the hands of Vijayapura Urban Development Authority was required to be considered by the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. An endorsement could not have been issued by the authority declining to sanction the plan on the ground that scheme was proposed by the authority way back in the year 2010 for development. A right would arise to the authority to decline such application only if a notification is duly published preliminarily for acquisition of the lands for formation of a scheme or a layout. The Urban Development Authority would get a right to decline such an application only if an acquisition notification is published in accordance with law,” the bench said.