- JSW Academic Building inaugurated at Krea University to foster excellence in education
- Amazon Launches Multi Channel Fulfilment for Sellers, Retailors, Brands and Manufacturers in India
- Akhil Akkineni’s Action-Packed Espionage Thriller ‘Agent’ To Premiere Exclusively On Sony LIV!
- TN CM issues orders allowing LT consumers to modify power load based on consumption pattern
- AIADMK seniors meet BJP leaders over rift in ties, saffron party backs state leadership
- Kamats Restaurants partners with IDFC First Bank for FASTag registration and recharge
- Amid heavy rains, bridge caves in in Bihar
- Maoist Party Platoon Party Committee Member Arrested
- Three Telangana Congress MPs missed voting on Women’s Bill
- K’taka cash-for-ticket scam: Woman Hindutva activist, six others sent to judicial custody
The land earmarked for public purposes would not be cancelled even after 5 years : Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru: The High Court has opined that land earmarked for public purposes including roads in the master plan cannot be canceled even after five...
Bengaluru: The High Court has opined that land earmarked for public purposes including roads in the master plan cannot be canceled even after five years have passed since the plan was announced.
K. Gopalagowda and R. Ravichandran, land owners of Tarabanagalli in Yalahanka taluk of Bangalore City district, had filed an application in the High Court challenging the allocation of their lands for a road by the Bangalore International Airport Planning Authority. The Karnataka town and country Planning Act (KTCP) bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna heard the petition. According to Section 69(2) of 1961, if the land is earmarked for public purposes such as meeting future requirements including road, state and national highways, the project can be allowed to continue even after five years. The action of the Airport Planning Authority is already legally accepted.
Therefore, the appeal of the petitioner cannot be entertained. Also, if the objections are submitted and not considered while issuing the final notification regarding the road construction master plan, there is no scope in law to change the plan. Also, as per section 12 of the KTCP Act, the land is in the possession of the planning authority after the final notification is issued. The law does not allow the owner to reclaim this right. Thus, the court said that if the land is given back to the landowners, it will be an illegal move.
A preliminary notification was issued in 2004 and a final notification was issued in 2009 regarding road construction on the petitioner's lands. However, they did not know this fact while purchasing the land. Meanwhile, both the owners had submitted a petition seeking conversion of the agricultural land into non-agricultural land. However, the government rejected the petition as there was a notification related to the construction of a road on the petitioner's land. Challenging this, the petitioner filed an application in the High Court. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner said that the road was demarcated on the instructions of some developers as per the 2004 master plan.
Due to this our client's farms are suffering. Although the land was earmarked in 2004, there has been no development after 19 years. Therefore, he argued that if the development work does not start within 5 years of the master plan, the plan will be cancelled.