V Murali vs. Bangalore Metro Politian Region Development Authority

Held

The High Court held that the prayer made by the petitioner could not be granted at this stage. The Court noted that the petitioner had already approached the competent civil court and had filed suits seeking specific performance. It was for the petitioner to obtain interim orders from the Civil Court to restrain the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property or alienating it until the disposal of the suits. The Court found that when the petitioner had already approached the civil court, he could not file a writ petition seeking to cancel or quash the sanctioned plan. The Court reasoned that unless the petitioner could establish his right over the property in question, no positive direction could be given by the High Court at this stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the competent civil court in the pending suits seeking interim relief.

Facts

The petitioner, V Murali, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the sanctioned plan and building license issued by the Anekal Planning Authority (Respondent No. 2) on September 17, 2019, in favor of Respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder for the land in question, comprising Sy.No.50/1 and Sy.No.59 in Bandenallasandra Village, Anekal Taluk. He has pending civil suits (O.S.No.130/2016 and O.S.No.131/2016) before the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal seeking specific performance of the contract. Despite his objections, the planning authority sanctioned the layout plan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, can quash a sanctioned plan and building license when the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the civil court for specific performance of an agreement to sell, and has already filed suits seeking such relief? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Anekal Planning Authority sanctioned the plan despite his objections and pending civil suits, and therefore, the sanctioned plan should be quashed. Respondents No. 4 & 5's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner is merely an agreement holder with no vested right and has approached the civil court. They contended that the writ petition is an attempt to obtain relief that could not be secured in the civil court and that the layout plan approved by the planning authority covers various survey numbers, including the disputed ones. They asserted that a blanket order restraining them from proceeding with the layout formation based on the sanctioned plan cannot be granted.