ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to pay the market price of Plot No. 25 bearing CTS No. 8/25 NL and Plot No. 78 bearing CTS No. 8/78 NL to the petitioner. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to put up any construction or structure or alter or change the nature of the said lands in any manner whatsoever; not to effect any changes in entries in records of rights by City Survey Office, Dharwad or any other authorities in respect of the said site numbers.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing R.S. No. 4+14C/1 and 4+14C/2 measuring 10 acres 11 guntas, 242 sq. yards. In the said land, the petitioner intended to form sites by way of forming private layout. Accordingly, he submitted the layout plan to the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called 'Corporation'), a statutory body governed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 for the purpose of necessary approval, by complying with all the necessary formalities. The said private layout plan submitted by the petitioner was provisionally approved by the Corporation by its order dated 23rd March, 1967 and permission for non-agricultural use was also given by the Deputy Commissioner in No. LNA.SR.1622, dated 11th May, 1967. After taking the approval of the layout plan, the petitioner has formed the layout as per the sanctioned plan. It is the case of petitioner that, as per the layout plan approved by the Corporation, Plot No. 25 was earmarked for nursery, school and Plot No. 78 was reserved for open space. Accordingly, the said plots were given numbers as CTS No. 8/25 and CTS No. 8/78 N2 respectively. The petitioner has thereafter formed the layout and after developing the same, he has handed over the roads and drainage to the Corporation authorities. Accordingly, petitioner wrote a letter dated 17th September, 1968 vide Annexure-A, stating that'sas per the provisional approval given for formation of private layout, the roads and drainage are developed and the same are ready for taking over by the authorities. In the said letter, petitioner has also stated that, the Mysore Housing Board, Hubli have come forward to purchase half area of the layout i.e., from the area left for school and nursery to West, touching Doddanaikana Village boundary (Plot Nos. 1 to 25) and the said negotiation is in progress and may take some more time and therefore, he requested the authorities to make arrangements to take possession of the first half of the area i.e., Plot Nos. 26 to 75 as the layout is ready and issue him a general permission to enable the individual purchasers to apply for building permission. Thereafter, he has handed over the open space in both the plots and the Assistant Engineer P.W.D., HDMC, Dharwad has also taken the possession of the open space referred above which were reserved for nursery, school etc., vide Annexure-B. Be that as it may.
3. It is the further case of petitioner that, the plots, open space, as stated above are reserved as open space and for starting a nursery, school etc. But, the Corporation, without following any procedure and without even intimating the petitioner, has suddenly got transferred the said property in the name of the Corporation, The said transfer of lands in question in the name of the Corporation is illegal and without authority of law and contrary to the relevant provisions. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said transfer of the lands in question reserved for public purpose, petitioner was constrained to file writ petition in W.P. Nos. 24382 and 24997 of 1997. The said writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 13th November, 2000 leaving open all the contentions and to approach the Court again, on the same cause of action, if need arises. When things stood thus, petitioner came to know that, the Corporation, instead of utilising the said land for the purpose for which it is reserved, has made all efforts to register the same in favour of second respondent by entering into a lease agreement with them on 3rd March, 2001 which is registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office on 11th April, 2001 vide Annexure-G. It is the further case of petitioner that, he received a notice in this regard, to which, he has filed objection. But, the Corporation, without giving any opportunity and without considering the objections filed by petitioner, has changed the entries in the record of rights. With this background, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate directions, as stated supra.
4. The principal ground urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the two plots in question were reserved for a specific purposes, i.e., public utility and the same had to be acquired by the public authority by paving necessary compensation. In the instant case, the possession of these two plots are taken over without notifying for acquisition and without paying the compensation for open space. Further, it is the case of petitioner that, the planning authority has no power under the above Act to take the possession of the land and hand it over to any other authorities like Municipal Corporation or other authorities. When the layout was sanctioned in the year 1967 and plan was approved by the Competent Authority, the said lands were covered under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, under which, there is no provision for taking any open space reserved for public purpose or other public utility without paying compensation. In the instant case, no such procedure has been followed. It is his further case that, when sanctioning the layout plan, no conditions are put saying that, open space and other sites should be handed over free of cost. Therefore, the action of the Corporation Authorities in changing the entries in respect of the two plots, is in itself illegal and the same is without jurisdiction and impermissible under law. Therefore, even otherwise also, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled principles of law that, no person should be deprived of his just and reasonable compensation and a person cannot be deprived of his right to property without authority of law and without just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate direction to the authority as sought in the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for first respondent, inter alia, contended and submitted at the outset that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. To substantiate the said submission, he has taken me through Annexure-A, dated 17th September, 1968 and pointed out that, before the then Commissioner for Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, Dharwad, the petitioner himself has given an undertaking stating that, so far, he has developed the roads and drains in the first half of the area i.e., (26 to 75 plots) and layout is ready and requested the authority to make arrangements for taking over possession of the same and issue him the general permission so that individual purchasers may apply for the building permission and thereafter, petitioner himself has handed over possession in respect of the items as mentioned at Annexure-B. Therefore, learned Counsels for respondents submitted that, when petitioner himself has handed over the possession of the said plots free of cost at the time of taking approval of the layout plan, by accepting the terms and conditions of layout plan and took permission to sell the sites, now, after the sites are formed and layout is formed, it is not open for the petitioner, at this distance of time, to go back from his decision to handover the said two plots for public purpose and claim the same, which he had voluntarily given nearly four decades ago. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to seek for such a relief and the averment made that, some assurances were given by the officials of the Corporation are totally false and there are no such assurances given by any officials. Except making averment in the writ petition, petitioner has not produced any written communication between the petitioner and officials of the first respondent-Corporation, Further, learned Counsel for respondents submitted that, once layout is formed and development is carried out as per the sanctioned plan, it is the duty of the concerned person who has taken such sanctioned plan, to handover possession of the open space reserved for public purpose to Corporation for maintenance of roads, civic amenities and rightly he has handed over the same. Now, at this juncture, seeking compensation in respect of the plots reserved for public purpose, the possession of which has been given to the Corporation by petitioner himself as per the layout plan, is not correct. The petitioner cannot seek such a relief before this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived one.
6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsels for respondents. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioner, referred above, the only question that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to:
Whether, petitioner is entitled to seek for such a prayer in the instant writ petition?
After careful evaluation of the records available on file and the submission made by learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, petitioner has taken the provisional approval of layout in the land bearing R.S. No. 4+14C/1 and 4+14C/2 of Narayanapur Village on 23rd March, 1967. After taking provisional approval of the layout plan, petitioner has formed the layout and also developed the land by providing all civic amenities. As per the provisions existed as on the date of sanctioning the layout plan, it is significant to note here itself that, the petitioner himself had sent a letter dated 17th September, 1968 requesting the authorities that, he has already formed the roads and requested the authorities to make arrangements to take possession of the first half of the area i.e., Plot Nos. 26 to 75 as the layout is ready and issue him a general permission to enable the individual purchasers to apply for building permission. Thereafter, petitioner himself had handed over the open space and the civic amenities for the purpose of nursery and school in Plot No. 25 and Plot No. 78 and he himself is a signatory for such handing over of possession in the said layout vide Annexure-B. It can further be seen that, petitioner has voluntarily surrendered the possession of the road and open space under his signature. The same has been taken under the signature of the Assistant Engineer, PWD HDMC, Dharwad. Once the possession of the civic amenity sites is handed over by the petitioner voluntarily and in accordance with the terms and conditions for approval of layout plan that existed at that stage, it is not now open for the petitioner to prevent/prohibit the respondents from using the same that too, after lapse of nearly four decades, now opening his eyes and realising the potentiality of the open space and having regard to the fact that, the prices have reached sky high going back from his own undertaking. The same is impermissible under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 or the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 or the relevant provisions existed as on the date of sanctioning the layout plan or under any provisions of the Act. The layout plan has been sanctioned for formation of private layout subject to handing over possession of roads, civic amenities, open space. Petitioner, after accepting the terms and conditions of sanctioned layout plan and thereafter, rightly handing over the same without protest and surrendered voluntarily, now, it is not open for him to go against his own acceptance of the terms and conditions for grant of private layout. When once the possession is handed over as per Annexure-B, the right on the two plots reserved for public purpose vests with the concerned authority and that, the same has reached finality as early as in the year 1968. At this distance of time, petitioner is not entitled to seek for such a relief and the same is misconceived in nature nor has the petitioner made out any good grounds to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. However, so far as the specific ground taken by the petitioner regarding the application of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the provision of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act and the specific pleading that his right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution should not be infringed are concerned, I am of the considered view that, the same have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. When petitioner has obtained his right by way of agreeing to the terms and conditions of the layout plan, got the layout plan approved in the year 1967 and handed over possession of the open space and plots reserved for public purpose without protest, voluntarily, now, it does not lie in his mouth to contend that, the authorities cannot take the civic amenities sites free of cost without paying the compensation. Therefore, there is no substance in the said specific ground taken by petitioner.
8. Yet another reason on which the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected at the threshold is, on the ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, as per the material available on record, it emerges that, the layout plan has been sanctioned in the year 1967 and in turn, after development of the private layout in the year 1968, petitioner himself has requested the authority to take over the roads, open space civic amenities and has handed over the possession of the same as per Annexure-B, specifically mentioning the portion of road, plot numbers, civic amenities portion as school, nursery, plot numbers, triangular piece measuring 1 guntas 20 2/9 yards, drains etc. There is a delay of more than four decades. The said delay has not been explained by the petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed,
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of any merits.