Quashed

Sri S Rajareddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021WP/9932/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement rejecting a petitioners' application for land diversion. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to re-examine the petitioners' application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as diversion is a prerequisite for seeking permission to change land use under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2020 quashed; petitioners directed to submit representation with certified copy of order; respondent to dispose of new application within four months.

Sri S Rajareddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9932/2021 (KLR-CON)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI S RAJAREDDY, S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.10-136, KUDIBAVI STREET KPT STREET, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶8

SRI K KESHAVA, S/O ANJINAPPA, AGD ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-100, SHANTHINAGARA, WARD NO.2,DHARMAVARAM ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶9

SMT T PAAVANI,

¶10

W/O LAKSHMAN RAO TANGI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/ATNO.24-351-2,

¶11

SIDDAIAHGUTTA STREET, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶12

¶13

ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶14

SRI D TATAIAH, S/O DAMPETLA CHINNAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.28-95, RAJENDRANAGARA, DHARMAVARAM ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶15

SRI P RAMESH, S/O P POOJARI ESHWRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/ATNO.31-290-2, RAMANAGARA DHARMAVARAM ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶16

SRI M VIJAYA BHASKAR, S/O MEKA PEDDA GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.14-536, PRT STREET, DHARMAVARAM ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH PIN CODE 515671.

¶17

SRI O SAIRAM S/O O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-5-A, DHARMAN STREET, DHAMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH, PIN CODE - 515671. ... PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR V, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

AND :

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL SECRETARY.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 234, AMANI GOPALAKRISHNAKERE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI R SRINIVASAGOWDA, AGA) ****

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT / ORDER DATED 25.08.2020 OF THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN APPLICATION NO.175612 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners, who assert ownership of the land

¶28

measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.18/3 of Kalavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk [the subject land], have impugned the Endorsement dated

¶29

¶30

25.08.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District [the second respondent] rejecting the petitioners’ application for diversion of the subject land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes. The second respondent has remarked that the declaration of the master plan as contemplated under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short, ' the KTCP Act' ) is awaited with the publication of declaration of intention in that regard as contemplated under Section 10 thereof, and the subject land is classified for agricultural uses as per the declaration of intention.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lands surrounding the subject property are already developed into a residential locality and the lands in the immediate vicinity of the subject property i.e., land in Sy.No.26/1 of Kalavara Village, is permitted to be put to non-agriculture residential

¶32

¶33

purpose by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 25.08.2019 in No.ALN(Ch.)SR.78/201819. Therefore, there is no justification for issuance of the impugned endorsement. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that because the subject property is classified for agricultural purposes in terms of the declaration of intention under Section 10 of the KTCP Act, the impugned Endorsement is issued.

¶34

The provisions of Section 14 of the KTCP Act

¶35

reads as follows:

¶36

"14. Enforcement of the Master Plan and the Regulations]

¶37

[ (1) On and from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare a Master Plan is published under sub-section (1) of section 10, every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of this Act, the Master Plan and the Report, as finally approved by the State Government under subsection (3) of section 13.]

¶38

¶39

(2) No such change in land use or development as is referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made except with the written permission of the Planning Authority which shall be contained in a commencement certificate granted by the Planning Authority in the form prescribed.

¶40

[Provided that where the use or change of land use under this section needs the diversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural purposes, such use or change of use shall not be permitted unless permission is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for such diversion.]

¶41

Explanation .- For the purpose of this section,(a) the expression "development" means the carrying out of building or other operation in or over or under any land or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land;

¶42

(b) the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve a development of any building or land, namely:-

¶43

(i) the carrying out of works for maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building;

(ii) [xxxx]

(iii) [xxx]

(iv) the use of any building or other land within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such;

¶48

(v) when the normal use of land which was being temporarily used for any other purpose on the day on which the declaration of intention to prepare the outline development plan is published under sub-section (1) of section 10 is resumed;

¶49

(vi) when land was normally used for one purpose and also on occasions for any other purpose, the use of the land for that other purpose on similar occasions.

¶50

(3) Every application for permission under subsection (2) shall be accompanied by a plan, drawn to scale showing the actual dimensions of the plot of land in respect of which permission is asked, the size of the building to be erected and the position of the building upon the plot and such other information as may be required in this behalf by the Planning Authority."

¶51

These provisions and the provisions of Section

¶52

14A of the KTCP Act, which allows change in land use

¶53

even from the land use mentioned in the Master Plan/ Declaration of Intention under certain circumstances

¶54

¶55

have come up for consideration before this Court on earlier occasions. It is now settled that the permission for diversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'KLR Act') would not override the requirements under Section 14 of the KTCP Act, and in fact, the diversion under Section 95 of the KLR Act is a must for the concerned to approach the competent authority under the KTCP Act for change in land use as contemplated under Section 14(A) of the KTCP Act, and unless there is permission for diversion under Section 95 of the KLR Act, the concerned cannot even make an application under Section 14A of the KTCP Act.

¶56

Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner must consider the petitioners’ application under Section 95 of the KLR Act to examine whether an agricultural land can be diverted to be put to non-agricultural purposes

¶57

¶58

in exercise of the powers under Section 95 of the KLR Act. If the Deputy Commissioner is of the view that for the reasons other than the declaration/master plan either under Section 10 or 13 of the KTCP Act, agricultural land cannot be permitted to be diverted to non-agricultural purposes must accordingly decide. However, if the Deputy Commissioner cannot justifiably refuse diversion for the reasons other than the declaration/master plan under the KTCP Act, the Deputy Commissioner must issue the necessary diversion orders under Section 95 of the KLR Act on such conditions as may be necessary. On the diversion being accordingly permitted and if such permission for diversion is contrary to the declaration of intention/master plan under the KTCP Act, the owner of the land would have to necessarily approach the competent authority under Section 14A of the KTCP Act. This Court must observe that this could also be one of

¶59

¶60

the conditions that could be imposed by the Deputy Commissioner while issuing conversion certificate.

¶61

In the light of this discussion, the petition is disposed of quashing the impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2020 directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' application in the light of the observations made herein. The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit a representation enclosing the certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof. If such representation is submitted, the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶62

SD/JUDGE

¶63

BSR

Sri S Rajareddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Rajareddy v. the State of Karnataka

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

Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Ramachandra Vs the Thasildhar

Zahirabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kamala Rajendran Vs the Asst. Commissioner

Sri Byregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

T S Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka