Allowed

Neelkant S/O Murusavirappa Ambli v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2021WP/103597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court quashed the Respondent Commissioner's order rejecting the Petitioner's application for land development sanction on the ground that the entire land extent was not included. The Court observed that the Petitioner only possesses part of the land and thus only applied for that extent. Consequently, the order was held illegal and arbitrary, and the Commissioner wa

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 22.06.2021 quashed; Respondent directed to reconsider application at Annexure-D within three months.

Neelkant S/O Murusavirappa Ambli Vs the Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No. 103597/2021 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NEELKANT S/O MURUSAVIRAPPA AMBLI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O HOUSE NO. 32, SHAKTI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 030.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 025.

¶12

RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G & ETC.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs.

¶18

Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned order dated 22.06.2021 passed by respondent produced as Annexure-G and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioners to develop the lands as per their applications and sketch produced along with the applications produced as Annexure-F and for other reliefs.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record including the impugned order.

¶20

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged by

¶21

the petitioners by referring to various documents produced along with the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that pursuant to acquiring the subject land measuring 13 guntas 12.75 annas, the petitioner submitted the application for sanction/ approval of the application vide Annexure-D dated 28.09.2020 enclosing

¶22

¶23

all relevant documents. In response to the same, the respondent issued the impugned communication/ endorsement dated 22.06.2021 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners had not sought for sanction/ approval in respect of the entire extent. In this context, while inviting my attention to the provisions contained in Sec. 17 of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners had acquired only the aforesaid extent of 13 guntas 12.75 annas, the question of petitioners applying for sanction plan/ approval in respect of the larger extent of land in excess of the said extent of 13 guntas 12.75 annas, does not arise and consequently the impugned communication/ endorsement is vitiated, illegal, arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

¶26

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a perusal of the impugned communication/ endorsement at Annexure-G dated 22.06.2021, will indicate that the respondent has rejected the application for sanction/ approval of the plan/ sketch submitted by the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioners had sought for approval/ permission only to an extent of 13 guntas 12.75 annas, out of the total extent of 3 acres 8 guntas situated in the said block. In this context, it is relevant to state that since the petitioners claim right, title, interest and possession over only an extent of 13 guntas 12.75 annas out of total extent of 3 acres 18 guntas, the question of the petitioners submitting an application for sanction/ approval in respect of the entire extent does not arise and consequently, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-G dated 22.06.2021 rejecting the application solely on the ground that the application did not include the entire extent is clearly illegal, arbitrary and vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶27

¶28

7. In the result, I pass the following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Writ petition is allowed; ii) impugned communication/ endorsement dated 22.06.2021 at Annexure-G issued by the respondent is hereby quashed;

¶31

iii) Respondent is hereby directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner at Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order bearing in mind the observations made in this order.

¶32

SdJUDGE

Neelkant S/O Murusavirappa Ambli v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelkant S/O Murusavirappa Ambli v. the 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

Smt. Fatima W/O. Riyaz Managaonkar Vs Shri. Lalu S/O. Babukhan Pathan

The Head Master Vs Smt.Tippavva W/O Shivaputrappa Hunahunti

Shivamurthi Ningappa Kamati Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Surekha W/O Narasaingh Rajput Vs Sri.Narasaingh S/O Somappa Rajput

The Manager Vs Mahantesh Iranna Umarani

Sri.Laxmivinayak Trading Company, Vs State Bank of India