Allowed

Sri.a.S.Balamurali Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2016WP/3062/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions seeking land conversion, holding that the absence of acquisition mandates under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act deems the application granted, directing respondents to issue a certificate after collecting charges.

What did the court decide?

The application for conversion of land was deemed granted; respondents directed to grant Conversion Certificate after collecting charges.

Sri.a.S.Balamurali Krishna Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.3062 AND 3208-3211 OF 2016

¶7

(KLR-CON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Sri. A.S.Balamurali Krishna, Son of Sri. A. Shivaswamy Ayyar, Aged about 58 years, 13/10, New Sayyaji Road, Bamboo Bazar, Mysore 570 001. …PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore 570 001.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk, Mysore 570 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(By Shri H. Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents)

¶17

¶18

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the first respondent to dispose of the application dated 1.8.2014 filed by the petitioner seeking conversion of the land within a time bound period [Annexure-B] and to direct the first and second respondents to take action on the application by the petitioner seeking conversion of the land as applied.

¶19

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned Additional Government Advocate, who was

¶22

directed to obtain instructions, has now reported that the first respondent has raised three issues. Firstly, whether the land has been notified for acquisition by the Mysore Urban Development Authority and secondly, whether there is an order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in respect of the

¶23

land. The third issue is the repetition of the first.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out

¶25

that the above issues have already been clarified as seen from

¶26

¶27

the material on record, Annexure –A, which would indicate that there is no acquisition by the Development Authority. Consequently, there is also an endorsement, which is filed along with the application seeking conversion, that there are no orders passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights.

¶28

The learned counsel would submit that the adjacent lands have been converted and there is an order passed by this court holding that there is no impediment for considering the application of the petitioner for conversion when these ingredients have been satisfied.

¶29

Therefore, the objections raised by the Deputy Commissioner did not fall in any of the impediments that would deter from granting conversion as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as seen from sub-section (2A) of Section 95. Therefore, since there was no valid reason assigned for not considering the application of the petitioner, it is deemed to have been granted and it would be a matter of

¶30

¶31

procedure for the respondent now to grant Conversion Certificate after collecting appropriate charges.

¶32

The petitions stand disposed of in terms as above.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri.a.S.Balamurali Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.S.Balamurali Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M B Rudramuni Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkataraju S/O Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Engineers India Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/S Mohtisham Complexes Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Asst Commissioner of

Sri Chinnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyappa K Vs State of Karnataka