RMP prevails over village map; HC quashes encroachment notices issued to site owners

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Kar nataka has reiterated that “RMP (Revised Master Plan) would prevail over the village map and it is only if the RMP reflects existence of in Raja Kaluve, there could the State or its authorities seek to exercise any right thereon.”

It therefore quashed the notices issued to over a dozen residential plot owners in Halanayakanahalli, Varthuru, Bengaluru East Taluk. Eighteen petitioners approached the HC whose plea was heard by Justice Suraj Govindaraj.

The Additional Director of Land Records had issued a notice to them for clearing alleged encroachment of government land. It was alleged that they had encroached the Raja Kaluve.

The counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no Raja Kaluvey in the survey sketch and in the RTCs issued to them.

There was only 2 guntas of “A Kharab” land out of the total of 39 guntas of land which were duly converted after payment of fees in 1997. It was submitted that “"A kharab" being only uncultivable area is not vested with the Government, nor does any member of the public have any right over the said "A kharab".

It is only in the event of there being a "B kharab" situated in a particular survey number, could the government or any authority claim right over the same. Since it is in respect of the "B kharab" that the public right is vested.”

The HC said that “The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is if there is no Raja Kaluve, which has been shown in the Revised Master Plan or the Comprehensive Development Plan, could any authority of the State by relying upon the village map/Tippani contend that there is Raja Kaluve situated in that property.”

Citing the earlier judgement in Sobha Developers Vs BBMP, the HC said, the RMP would prevail over the village map.

“Once RTCs do not reflect the said "B kharab", question of reserving of land for public use or that the right over the land being vested with the government, would not at all arise,” the HC said.

The HC also noted that regularization was also made of the A Kharab land. “Once such regularization is made and 4 guntas stood vested with the petitioner, there is no kharab, either "A kharab" or "B kharab" situated in the aforesaid survey numbers,” it said.

The HC therefore quashed the notice issued by the authorities. The HC however clarified that “Liberty is however reserved for the corporation and/ or the State to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purposes of formation of any drain, if it wishes to do so.”