Disposed

G T Girish v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021WP/5968/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order rejecting his application for changing land use from residential to commercial for an Indian Oil outlet. Court held Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over already approved residential layouts. Writ disposed with liberty to approach competent authority under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach competent authority under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act for land use change.

G T Girish 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 JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5968/2021 (KLR/CON)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

G. T. GIRISH S/O THIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BEHIND T. V. STATION VINAYAKA NAGAR PAVAGADA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. ERAPPA REDDY M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING NO.30, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH MAIN ASHOK NAGAR, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶13

THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER MYSURU DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. L35/A, 1^ST FLOOR, B N ROAD

¶14

¶15

MYSORE TRADE CENTRE OPP. KSRTC BUS STAND MYSURU - 570 001.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-1 DATED 15.01.2021 VIDE ANNX-H AND TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.02.2020 VIDE ANNX-G IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, are heard for final disposal, and notice to the respondent No.3 is dispensed with as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

The petitioner, who asserts that he is the

¶24

owner of the sites bearing Nos.1 to 8 carved out in the land measuring 11 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.24/2 of Pavagada, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District, has filed this petition impugning the Endorsement dated 15.01.2021 in No.

¶25

TMKDC/ALN/ALPG/3/2020 - JUD - TUMKUR / DC (Annexure - H) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur (the first respondent) informing the petitioner that his request for diversion of 1,152.81 square meters in Sy.No.24/2 of Pavagada, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District (which is part of the land already permitted to be diverted for residential purposes) for commercial purposes cannot be considered in the light of the Government Circular dated 04.12.2019.

¶26

The petitioner's case is that he was the owner

¶27

of 11 acres 13 guntas of the land in Sy.No.24/2 of

¶28

¶29

Pavagada, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District, and this land is permitted to be diverted from agricultural to residential/commercial use by the Official Memorandum dated 03.01.2014 in No. A.L.N(MG)CR.148/11-12 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur - the first respondent. Thereafter, he has obtained approval for development of a layout in this land from the office of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru. The layout has been accordingly developed in the aforesaid lands and he has retained ownership of the site Nos. 1 to 8 in Sy.No.24/2 of Pavagada, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. He now proposes to use these sites as an Indian Oil Corporation Limited Retail Outlet. His application for necessary change in the land use has been rejected by the first respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur by the impugned Endorsement dated 15.01.2021.

¶30

¶31

It is settled that once an agricultural land is permitted to be diverted to non-agricultural use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, unless it is established that such land is not assessed for revenue by a "local authority" a Deputy Commissioner cannot exercise jurisdiction either under Section 95 or Section 97 of the KLR Act, and the appropriate course for the concerned would be to submit an application either under Section 14 or Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as the circumstances would command.

¶32

Significantly, the Government has also issued Circular dated 04.12.2019 stating that the Deputy Commissioner shall not exercise jurisdiction in those cases where the land is diverted from agricultural to residential purposes and approvals have been granted by the competent authority for development of a layout.

¶33

¶34

In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 for permission to use site Nos.1 to 8 carved out of the land measuring 11 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.24/2 of Pavagada, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District for the purposes of an Indian Oil Corporation Retail Outlet, and if such application is filed the concerned authority shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

G T Girish v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G T Girish 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

Smt Thaslima Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy K M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasa Vs State of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary to Govt Vs M Abbayya @ Abbanna

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka