Shashibhushan R Goni v. Union of India

Order bearing No.MAG(4)MIS:CR-417/11-12, Bangalore6, dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure R2 to the statement of objections). The relevant portion of said GO reads as under:

"The Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi vide its Notification No. SRO.No. 4 Dated: 13-1-2010 by exercising the powers conferred by Sections 3 and 7 of the works of Defence Act 1903 (7 of 1903) the

6 Herinafter it is referred to as 'GO'

Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to impose restrictions, upon the use and enjoyment of land in the vicinity of the Indian Air Force Stations and Installations, declared that such land shall be kept free from buildings and other obstructions in view of the Security threat to the Defence as such, it is felt expedient to prohibit all kinds of constructions coming within 100 meters of the Outer parapet of Technical Area of Air Force Station, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Addl. Taluk, Bangalore District, Karnataka State and directed that the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bangalore District shall issue a Notice of imposition of restriction on constructions etc, as laid down in sec 7 of the said Act. In pursuance of the restriction laid down in sec. 7 of the said Act from and after the publication of the present notice issued u/s 3(2) of The works of Defence Act 1903 (7 of 1903) such of the following restrictions have been imposed and all these restrictions shall hold good and attach with reference to such lands and constructions shown in the "Annexure-A" to this notification. a) no buildings or structures shall be constructed or erected or no tree shall be planted on any land within the limits of 100 maters from the crest of the outer parapet of Technical Area of Air Force Station, Yelahanka as given in the Annexure 'A' to this Notification:

i) no variation shall be made in the ground-level, and no building, wall, erected, added to or altered otherwise than with the written approval of the Air Officer Commanding Air Force Station, Yelahanka and on such conditions as he may prescribe;

ii) no wood, earth, stone, brick, gravel, sand or other material shall be stacked, stored or otherwise accumulated;

Provided that, with the written approval of the Air Officer Commanding and on such conditions as he may prescribe, road-allast, manure and agricultural produce are exempted from this restriction.

This notification shall come in to force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. This Notification

is issued consequent to the receipt of Ministry of Defence Gazette Notification Dated: 13-1-2010 made available by the Air Officer, Commanding, Air Force Station, Yelahanka, Bangalore-63."

(emphasis supplied)

¶9Learned Additional Solicitor General justifying the impugned communication dated 08.07.2026 submits that having regard to the notification issued by the Central Government as well as the GO issued by the Deputy Commissioner, no construction activity within the limits of 100 metres from the outer parapet wall of the Indian Air Force Station, can be permitted.

¶10Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Annexure A of the GO and contends that the survey number of the property of the petitioner is not mentioned in the survey numbers pertaining to Hunasamaranahalli Village i.e., Sy.No.42. It is further submitted that there are various other constructions that have been put up within 100 metres of the outer parapet of the Indian Air Force Station. It is also contented that the construction put up by the petitioner has been undertaken after securing the relevant permissions from

the Municipality as well as the petitioner has availed credit facilities and hence, incurred huge financial expenses.

¶11Reliance is placed by the respondents on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of the Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Yelahanka and Anr., v. The Deputy Commissioner and others7. It is pertinent to note here that the Air Force Authorities had filed the said petition for a direction to the local authorities to demolish a construction that was put up in the restricted area of 100 metres of the Air Force Station. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the various provisions of the Act as well as the other contentions put forth by the rival parties, inter alia held as under: "13. In the present case, the Government of India has issued the notification under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act of 1903 dated 13.01.2010 imposing restriction that no building or structure shall be constructed, created or erected or no tree shall be planted on any land within the limits of 100 metres from the crest of outer parapet of Indian Air Force Station, Yelahanka. Consequent thereto, a notification dated 30.01.2012 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1903 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner which was published in the official gazette on 19.04.2012. The respondent No.1 who was bound to take steps under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1903, has miserably failed to do so. Nonetheless, Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.390/2020 and connected

7 W.P.No.35240/2014 - order dated 07.09.2022

appeals (decided on 06.07.2021) has held "However, inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 as well as on the part of the appellants will not make a notification issued under Section 3 and Section 3(2) of the Act of 1903 a nullity". Since the Act of 1903 provides for a clear machinery to identify the land that could be affected by the declaration under Section 3 of the Act of 1903 and to invite claims for compensation from persons interested and to assess the compensation payable, the respondent No.1 was bound to follow up the same. That not having been done, the notification under Section 3 of the Act of 1903 does not lapse and this Court is entitled to oversee the implementation of the Act of 1903, which is in the larger public interest and in the interest of the nation's security assets. The payment of compensation to the land losers would take care of the constitutional right of the land losers under Section 300A of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands disposed off directing the respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate proceedings under Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Act of 1903 for determining the compensation payable to the respondent No.5. The respondent No.1 shall identify the properties lying within 100 meters from the crest of outer parapet of the Air Force Station, Yelahanka and take appropriate steps for notifying the persons interested, conduct an enquiry and pass an award regarding the compensation payable. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed not to grant any permission of whatsoever nature to put up construction or erect any structure of whatsoever nature within the limits of 100 meters from the crest of outer parapet wall of the Air Force Station, Yelahanka. The respondent No.1 shall conclude the process of determining the compensation payable within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Until such determination and payment of compensation, the petitioners shall not disturb the possession of respondent No.5 or other owners of the land."

(emphasis supplied)

¶12It is clear that this Court had directed that the State Authorities not to grant any permission of whatsoever nature to erect any structure of whatsoever nature within the limits of 100 metres from the crest of the outer parapet wall of the Air Force Station. It is submitted that contempt proceedings have been undertaken with regard to the compliance of various other directions that have been issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Air Officer Commanding5. In this context, as noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench, restrictions in the usage of land by the proprietor of a land is required to be adjudicated by the concerned authorities by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings under Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Act.

¶13Having regard to the various provisions of the Act as noticed above, it is clear that the petitioner is required to avail his remedies as contemplated under Sections 9 and 12 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the question of granting the reliefs as sought for in the present petition does not arise.

¶14However, the petitioner is justified in retaining possession of his property, subject to the restrictions imposed under the provisions of the Act as notice above.

¶15The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the aforementioned.

¶16Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.

(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 23973 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHASHIBHUSHAN R GONI S/O.RUDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT UJWALA APARTMENT, FLAT NO.2. 108/C-3, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARUDRA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ROOM NO.6-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE AIR OFFICER COMMANDING, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU-560063 3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA AIRPORT ROAD, BENGALURU-560063 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD (KG ROAD) BENGALURU 560009 5. THE TAHASHILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK OFFICE MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560064 6. CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICE NEAR POST OFFICE HUNASMARANAHALLI BENGALURU- 562157 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S ARVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W SRI. CHANDAN SANJAY BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. SHIVAREDDY V, AGA FOR R4 TO R5 SRI. S.V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE/LETTER NO.YEL/1410/3/WKS DATED 08.07.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-P TO THE PETITION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "1) Issue a writ in nature of Certiorari to quash the Notice/letter no.YEL/1410/3/WKS dated 08.07.2026 vide Annexure-P to the petition issued by the 3rd respondent in so far it pertains to the petitioner; (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not to dispossess the petitioner from his site no.89 of SDF road, SVS homes Layout, Bengaluru- 560063; (iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexure-Q dated 20.07.2026, Annexure- J dated 29.01.2025; (iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner in the guise of high handedness of the authorities; (v) Pass any such order or issue any direction this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that he is the absolute owner of Site No. 89 of SDF Road, SVS homes Layout, Bengaluru - 5600631 having purchased the same vide a registered Sale Deed dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure A to the writ peititon) for valuable consideration. That the petitioner has paid 1 Hereinafter referred to as 'subject property' up to date taxes and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property ever since the date of his acquisition. That pursuant to the application made by the petitioner to the sixth respondent- Town Municipal Office2 he has been granted sanction plan for construction of a house, pursuant to which the petitioner has commenced construction of a house in the subject property. It is the further case of the petitioner that the subject property ever since the date of acquisition by the petitioner has been fenced. 3. It is pertinent to note that the subject property is situated abutting the compound wall of the Air Force Station, Yelahanka3. Various communications have been placed on record, which indicate that the Air Force Authorities have communicated with the fourth respondent - Deputy Commissioner and other authorities with regard to the usage of the area abutting the Air Force Station, more particularly during conduct of the Aero Show, which is an annual event. 4. The present writ petition inter alia assails a communication dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure-P to the writ 2 Hereinafter referred to as 'TMO' 3 Hereinafter referred to as 'Air Force Station' petition) issued by the A