Civic Amenity Sites Cannot Be Sold Since They Are Crucial In Shaping Quality Of Life Within Urban Areas: Karnataka High Court.
The Karnataka High Court held that civic amenity sites cannot be sold since they play a crucial role in shaping the quality of life within urban area. The petitioner had challenged the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2), to sell a plot reserved for civic amenities under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.
A Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that, “The Karnataka Urban Development Act, guided by the principles of sustainable urban planning, recognizes that civic amenity sites are not mere parcels of land, but integral components of the urban landscape that directly impact the quality of life of residents. By designating specific areas for civic amenities, the Act aims to create vibrant and livable urban environments that cater to the diverse needs of the population.”
The petitioner originally owned the land, which was later converted for non-agricultural use. Following the conversion, a layout consisting of 26 plots was created. Plot No.1 was designated for civic amenity purposes.
Advocate Laxman T. Mantagani appeared for the Petitioner, Advocate P.N. Hatti appeared for Respondents 1,2,4 and Advocate Srinand A. Pachchapure appeared for Respondent 3.
The challenge to the order was based on two main grounds:
Firstly, respondent No.2 lacked the authority to auction a civic amenity plot using Section 72 of the Act. Section 72 allows municipal councils to lease, sell, or transfer property owned by the local authority, and Plot No.1, reserved for civic amenity, should not be subject to Section 72.
Secondly, civic amenity sites are essential for urban development, designated for public amenities like parks, schools, healthcare facilities, etc. The Karnataka Urban Development Act prohibits selling civic amenity sites to ensure their sustained availability and prevent commercialization.
The Court noted that prohibiting the sale of these sites aligns with urban development goals, promoting community well-being. The Court further explained that Section 72 only authorizes leasing or selling of properties owned by the local authority, and civic amenity sites are custodianship responsibilities of local authorities. The Court added, “Moreover, the Act recognizes that local authorities play a pivotal role in preserving and safeguarding civic amenity sites. By designating local authorities as custodians of these sites, the Act entrusts them with the responsibility to ensure that these spaces continue to serve their intended purpose. This custodianship emphasizes the long-term commitment of local authorities to maintain and develop these sites in a manner that benefits the community.”
The Court said, “The local authority is only a custodian of civic amenity site.” Therefore, the Court held that invoking Section 72 for auctioning a civic amenity site is not permissible. Additionally, the Court said outright sale of civic amenity sites is not allowed under the Karnataka Urban Development (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules 1991.
Hence, the impugned order by respondent No.2 was unsustainable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order.
Cause Title: Mohan Vasudev Chavan v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2023:KHC-D:9684]
Click here to read/download Order
