<p>The high court has said that lands held by the planning authority for roads as per the master plan would not lapse even after five years and the landowners would have no right to reclaim the land or seek realignment.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (KTCP) makes it clear that once a land is earmarked for the purpose of roads, major or minor; highways state or national; for meeting immediate and future requirements, would all be exempted from lapsing despite the passage of five years.</p>.<p>Two petitioners K Gopalagowda and R Ravichandar challenged the resolution passed by the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) refusing to consider their request for change of alignment of the Airport Peripheral<br />Ring Road to the tune of 30 meters.</p>.<p>The petitioners own lands measuring one acre and 1.32 acre, respectively in Tharabanahlli village, now in Yelahanka taluk of Bengaluru Urban district.</p>.<p>The petitioners submitted that though the village map displayed the existence of village roads in certain survey numbers, the alignment of roads was changed at the behest of some developers.</p>.<p>It was contended that the petitioners’ property was first included in the interim master plan in 2004 and even after 19 years, the planning authority has not come up with any concrete project of formation of road.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the planning authority claimed that once the land is earmarked for the purpose of road formation in the master plan in terms of Section 12 of KTCP Act, it would not lapse, but continue to be so unless it is deleted in the subsequent master plan.</p>.<p>“It is no doubt true that the lands of the petitioners have been held by the planning authority under the master plan since 2004 and 19 years have passed by. The Master Plan of 2025 is yet to come about as the one that is in existence is the master plan of 2015, in which the lands of the petitioners continue to be held for the purpose of formation of road. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that their lands held by the planning authority in terms of Section 12 would lapse or the petitioners would have a right to reclaim the land or seek to realign formation of roads. The law prohibits it. If the law prohibits it, this court by its fiat cannot direct the planning authority to act contrary to law,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>
<p>The high court has said that lands held by the planning authority for roads as per the master plan would not lapse even after five years and the landowners would have no right to reclaim the land or seek realignment.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (KTCP) makes it clear that once a land is earmarked for the purpose of roads, major or minor; highways state or national; for meeting immediate and future requirements, would all be exempted from lapsing despite the passage of five years.</p>.<p>Two petitioners K Gopalagowda and R Ravichandar challenged the resolution passed by the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA) refusing to consider their request for change of alignment of the Airport Peripheral<br />Ring Road to the tune of 30 meters.</p>.<p>The petitioners own lands measuring one acre and 1.32 acre, respectively in Tharabanahlli village, now in Yelahanka taluk of Bengaluru Urban district.</p>.<p>The petitioners submitted that though the village map displayed the existence of village roads in certain survey numbers, the alignment of roads was changed at the behest of some developers.</p>.<p>It was contended that the petitioners’ property was first included in the interim master plan in 2004 and even after 19 years, the planning authority has not come up with any concrete project of formation of road.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the planning authority claimed that once the land is earmarked for the purpose of road formation in the master plan in terms of Section 12 of KTCP Act, it would not lapse, but continue to be so unless it is deleted in the subsequent master plan.</p>.<p>“It is no doubt true that the lands of the petitioners have been held by the planning authority under the master plan since 2004 and 19 years have passed by. The Master Plan of 2025 is yet to come about as the one that is in existence is the master plan of 2015, in which the lands of the petitioners continue to be held for the purpose of formation of road. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that their lands held by the planning authority in terms of Section 12 would lapse or the petitioners would have a right to reclaim the land or seek to realign formation of roads. The law prohibits it. If the law prohibits it, this court by its fiat cannot direct the planning authority to act contrary to law,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>