Partly allowed

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021WP/36883/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition partly, quashing an endorsement rejecting a land diversion application. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to admit enclosed title documents and decide under Section 95 of the KLR Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed partly; endorsement quashed; liberty to file enclosure to Deputy Commissioner within 4 weeks for decision under Section 95 of KLR Act.

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 36883/2016 (KLR/CON)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. M.K. GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE H.V. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.661, 4^TH CROS, KUMBARAGERI, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002. (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS)

¶8

1(A). SMT. R. MANGALA GOWRI W/O LATE M.K. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶9

1(B). SRI. M.G. ARUNKUMAR S/O LATE M.K. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶10

1(C). SRI. M.G. KIRAN KUMAR S/O LATE M.K. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶11

1(D). SMT. M.G. GEETHA RANI D/O LATE M.K. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS REP: BY GPA HOLDER R. MANGALA GOWRI.

¶12

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 1032, GEETHA ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(By SRI. R S RAVI., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND :

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶18

THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, REP: ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX OF MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, "I", BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 22.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2016 MADE IN NO. ALN (3) CR 12/2015-16, ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; DECLARE THAT THE LAND BEARING OLD SY.NO.49/1-6, NEW SY.NO.99, MEASURING 3 ACRES (4 GUNTAS IS KHARAB) SITUATED AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION FROM AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES TO THAT OF RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION DATED 05.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.A.R.Srinivas, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal given the limited scope of this writ petition because of the undisputed circumstances.

¶26

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju [the original petitioner] has impugned the endorsement dated 25.04.2016 in No.ALN[3]CR 126/2015-16 issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru [the first respondent]. Sri. M.K. Govindaraju is informed by this impugned Endorsement that his application for diversion of land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.99 of Chikkanahalli Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysuru Taluk [the subject land] from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'KLR Act'] cannot be considered because he has not furnished

¶27

¶28

necessary documents to establish title to the subject land.

¶29

Sri. R.S. Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioners who are permitted to come on record after the demise of Sri. M.K. Govindaraju, submits that indisputably the subject land was held by His Highness, the Maharaja of Mysore and Sri. M.K. Govindaraju can trace title to the subject land from His Highness and all the records necessary to establish indisputable title in Sri. M.K. Govindaraju have been enclosed to this petition and in the light of these documents, the endorsement dated 25.04.2016 could not have been issued. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that if the petitioners file these documents before the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru [the first respondent], he shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law for necessary decision under Section 95 of the KLR Act.

¶30

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions now made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition must be disposed of with certain liberties and directions. Hence the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

[a] The writ petition stands allowed

¶34

in part quashing the endorsement dated 25.04.2016 in No.ALN[3]CR 126/2015-16 [Annexure-J] of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru [the first respondent] with liberty to the petitioners to file all annexures enclosed to this writ petition as also further documents as they may choose with the first respondent, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, for permission under Section 95 of the KLR Act;

¶35

¶36

[b] If the petitioners file such

¶37

representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, Mysuru [the first respondent], shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law as required under Section 95 of the KLR Act keeping in mind the timeframe contemplated therein and the consequences.

¶38

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2018 for early hearing stands disposed of.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

AN/-

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju 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. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Vedant Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat Vs Deputy Commissioner

K C Manmatha Vs the Prl. Secretary