Partly allowed

R K Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2022WP/3459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bailment dispute, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the Planning Authority to reconsider the refusal of land conversion if the petitioner provides a sketch showing access within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish proper survey sketch showing access within one month; Respondent No.5 to inspect and submit recommendation within one month thereafter.

R K Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3459 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.K. PRASAD S/O P.K. RAJASHEKARAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS R/A HULLUKATTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572201

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101

¶16

THE TIPTUR TOWING PLANNING AUTHORITY 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS, BESIDE POST OFFICE, K.R. LAYOUT, TIPTUR-572201 TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶19

SRI. K.R.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 23.08.2021 BEARING NO.T.YO.PRA/BHU.PA/13/2021-22 AND THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 15.09.2021 BEARING NO.T.YO.PRA/BHU.PA/13/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT-PLANNING AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-H AND J AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the recommendations of the respondent No.5 dated 23.08.2021 and 15.09.2021 addressed to the respondent No.4 stating that as per the survey sketch in Form 11E, there is no access to the property which is sought to be converted for commercial use.

¶24

¶25

The petitioner intended to establish a

¶26

Petroleum outlet in a property belonging to him in Sy. No.111/2 of Hullukatte village, kasaba hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District, measuring 03 acres 31 guntas. The petitioner sought conversion of 25 guntas out of the aforesaid land for the purpose of establishing the outlet. The respondent No.5 being the Planning Authority recommended to the respondent No.4 that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered since the property sought to be converted did not have an access. The petitioner has, hence, challenged the said recommendations on various grounds.

¶27

When the writ petition was taken up for final disposal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a district road runs on the northern side of land in Sy.No.111/2 of Hullukatte village which belongs to the petitioner and that he would form a road to connect the property from the district road and that the respondent No.5 may be directed to reconsider the case and thereafter give its recommendation to the respondent No.4.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contended that if the petitioner gives a modified proposal indicating the access to the property in question, the respondent No.5 would consider the same in accordance with law after inspecting the property.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is directed to furnish a proper survey sketch before the respondent No.5 indicating the access to the property sought to be converted for commercial use. The respondent No.5 may after a physical inspection, submit its recommendation to the respondent No.4 in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to furnish such modified sketch to the respondent No.5 within a period of one month from today. The respondent No.5 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

sma

R K Prasad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R K Prasad 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

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri H K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Rathnakar Kamath Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Sri. H.G. Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

P.E. Sureshbabu Vs the Additional Secretary