Partly allowed

Smt Narasamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021WP/10012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an endorsement rejecting a land conversion application due to lack of due process. The court directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's request for converting agricultural to non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement was quashed; the Additional Deputy Commissioner is directed to reconsider the application for land conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 within 1

Smt Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10012/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. NARASAMMA W/O LATE SRI G. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.56, GULAKAMALE VILLAGE, THARALU POST, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 082.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER KANAKAPURA PLANNING AUTHORITY,

¶14

¶15

NO.469/CA, SAHAKARI HOUSING SOCIETY, AGRAHA NEW COLONY, THUNGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 062.

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR CITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGRAHA NEW COLONY, KANAKAPURA PLANNING AUTHORITY, THUNGANI POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 560 062.

¶17

THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 BEARING NO. ALN (SU) SR(KA) 39/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONER ARE SHOWN FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE IN THE MASTER PLAN 2031.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of the land measuring 2 acres 3 guntas in Sy. No.4/2 and land measuring 19 guntas in Sy. No.60/2 of Gulakamale Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk [subject lands] has filed this petition impugning the endorsement dated 21.12.2018 in No.ALN[SU]SR[KA]/39/2017-18 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru [for short 'Additional DC']. The petitioner is informed by this impugned endorsement that the petitioner's application for conversion of the subject lands is rejected because the petitioner has not furnished necessary 'No objection Certificate' from the office of the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, V.V. Tower, Podium Block, Bengaluru.

¶25

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

submits that the Additional DC could not have rejected the petitioner's application on such ground as the Additional DC should collate all necessary information to decide on the petitioner's application. The learned counsel emphasizes that even otherwise, the fourth respondent, the Joint Director, City and Rural Development, Kanakapura Planning Authority has informed the Additional DC that only a portion of the petitioner's land is notified for formation of Peripheral Ring Road, but even this communication is erroneous inasmuch as a mere perusal of the notifications would demonstrate that no portion of the petitioner's land is notified for such purpose.

¶28

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶29

cannot controvert that the Additional DC should have secured on his own, in terms of the different Circulars

¶30

¶31

issued by the Government, all the necessary

¶32

information from the concerned and scrutinised them to decide on the merits of granting diversion of the lands from agricultural to non agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. As such, the impugned endorsement, which is issued without application of mind and scrutiny of necessary information after collecting the same, cannot be sustained. Therefore the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed in part, and the

¶35

impugned endorsement dated 21.12.2018 in No.ALN[SU]SR[K]/39/17-18 is quashed.

¶36

[b] The petitioner is permitted to file with the Additional Deputy Commissioner,

¶37

Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of

¶38

¶39

receipt of a certified copy of this order, enclosing a copy thereof for reconsideration of her application for conversion of the subject land under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶40

[c] The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, shall within twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, inform the petitioner on the status of the application.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

Smt Narasamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Narasamma 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

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa Dead by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka