WRIT PETITION No. 10240 /1993


The Rajajinagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.
By its President,
G. Jairam, major,
No. 136-1/1,7the Cross, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagar, Bangalore. .. Petitioner.

[ By Sri. N. s. Sanjegowda, Adv., ]


The Bangalore Development Authority
By its commissioner,
Kumara Park Extension, Sankey Road,
Bangalore. . Respondnet.

[ By Sri. G. Narayana Rao, Adv.,]

This W.P. is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare that the petitioner has got deemed sanction to form a layout as per the plan produced before a B.D.A. on 14-10-1991 in respect of land acquired under notifications dated 06-06-1988 and 13-01-1989 issued under Sec. 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act at Annex -A and B.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:


[1] The petitioner in this Writ Petition sought declaration that he had a deemed sanction to form a lay out as per the plan produced before the B.D.A. on 14-10-1991 in respect of the land acquired under notifications dated 06-06-1988 and 13-01-1989 issued under Sec. 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition Act.

[2] When the Writ Petition was heard, this court by an order dated 30-06-1993 passed the following interim order:

"In this petition, the petitioner has filed a memo date: 30-06-1993. The memo reads as hereunder:

'The under signed submits that subject to the condition that the petitioner shall reserve 15% of the total area for parks, play grounds and open spaces apart from the land used for road. The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner Society to proceed with the civil work and under grounds drainage work etc., at its own risk and costs and further the petitioner society undertakes to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the planning authority as per the Zonal Regulations .

Taking into consideration that the petitioner-Society has agreed [1] to reserve 15% of the total land area in which the layout is being formed, for parks, play-grounds and open spaces and [2] 10% of the total area for civic amenities such as market, post office, a bank, a fair price depot etc; as provided in Appendix II to the Zonal Regulations attached to the Comprehensive Development Plan, apart from 25% of the total land area for formation of roads, the respondent Board [BDA ] is restrained from interfering with the execution of works associated with the formation of the layout that is being executed by the petitioner i.e., civil works for formation of roads, drainage's, provision for electricity and water supply and sewerage, on condition that the petitioner-society shall submit a revised layout plan to the Bangalore Development Authority within four weeks hereof. Call on 05-07-1993."

[3] The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled to a deemed sanction with regard to the plan produced on

14-10-1991. He submitted that the petitioner has furnished a revised plan dated 26-07-1993.

[4] The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. S. Sanjegowda, submitted that the plan was furnished to the B.D.A. or " A" & "B" and the Application for sanction was kept at the office of the B.D.A. and no intimation was sent to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as a deemed licence under Sec.32[8] of the B.D.A. Act. Sec. 32[8] of the B.D.A. act reads as follows:

"If the authority does not refuse sanction within six months from the date of the application under sub-section [2] or from the date or receipt of all information asked for under sub-section [7], such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form an extension or layout or to make the street, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of this Act and the Rules or bye-laws made under it ."

[5] It was submitted that since no reply came from B.D.A within the stipulated time of six months, the sanction was deemed to have been granted.

[6] No materials have been placed by the respondent that the respondent refused to sanction the plan within the period of six months.

[7] All that has been submitted by the respondent was pursuant to an interim order, the petitioner has furnished a revised plan. Whether the revised plan has been sanctioned or not need not be gone into in this Court.

[8] In that view of the matter, this writ petition becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.


Assistant Registrar
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001.