Ajesh Kumar Shankar Six | AKS Law Associates

Ajesh Kumar Shankar

MANU/KA/0978/2015

Equivalent Citation: 2015(2)KarLJ545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Writ Petition No. 54224 of 2014 (BDA)

Decided On: 06.02.2015

Appellants: Galleria Developers Private Limited and Ors.

Vs.

Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ajesh Kumar S., Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: S. Lakshminarayana, Additional Government Advocate and

A.D. Vijaya, Advocate

ORDER

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. The petitioners’ grievance is that their application for the issuance of the modified development plan for the use of the land from non-residential to residential purpose has remained unconsidered. Sri Ajesh Kumar S., the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the applicant for permission for the development of the building is entitled to the deemed permission. Section 15(1) and 15(2) read as follows:

“15. Permission for development of building or land.–(1) On receipt of the application for permission under Section 14, the Planning Authority shall furnish to the applicant a written acknowledgement of its receipt and after such inquiry as may be necessary either grant or refuse a commencement certificate:

Provided that such certificate may be granted subject to such general or special conditions as the State Government may, by order made in this behalf, direct.

(2) If the Planning Authority does not communicate its decision to the applicant within three months from the date of such acknowledgement, such certificate shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant:

Provided that the land use, change in land use or the development for which permission was sought for is in conformity with the Master Plan and the regulation finally approved under sub-section (3) of Section 13.

2. He submits that the petitioners have submitted the plan on 21-8-2012 and no communication is received till 20-8-2014. He is therefore agitating the petitioners’ entitlement to the deemed permission.

3. Smt. A.D. Vijaya, the learned Counsel for the respondent 2 submits that as per the interim report of the Controller and Auditor General (CAG), the irregular calculation has resulted in short recovery of ` 1.83 Crores from the first petitioner-Company. She submits that the final report is yet to be submitted. She submits, on instructions, that the respondent 2 would consider the petitioners’ request for the issuance of the modified development plan subject to the petitioners paying ` 1.83 Crores and further any other amounts, which may be quantified in the final report of the CAG.

4. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Ajesh Kumar, on instructions from Sri Adirya Raheja, the petitioner 2, who is present before the Court, submits that the petitioners are agreeable to pay ` 1.83 Crores unconditionally. He further undertakes to have the further amounts paid, if CAG’s final report, which is called Performance Audit Report is approved by the Legislature. However, he also hastens to add that the liberty be reserved to the petitioners to challenge the CAG’s final report, if it contains the demand, finding or observation that the petitioners are liable to pay the additional amounts, that is on and above ` 1.83 Crores.

5. On hearing the learned Advocates, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioners to pay ` 1.83 Crores unconditionally to the respondent 2. On the receipt of the said amounts, the respondent 2 shall process the petitioners’ application for the issuance of the modified development plan in accordance with law and pass the orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the amounts. If the CAG’s further interim report or the final report indicates that the petitioners are liable to pay any more or additional amounts, the same shall be paid by the petitioners, subject of course to their right of challenging the imposition of the additional demand and the outcome thereon. It shall also be open to the respondent 2 to take the indemnity bond and the personal guarantee of the petitioner 2 for the payment of additional amounts, should the CAG’s reports contain such a finding or observation.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Also Read : Ajesh Kumar Shankar Five