Disposed

Sri Balakrishna Bhandari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022WP/43792/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by property owners to quash an endorsement directing the Authority to consider their application for changing land use from red zone to residential. The High Court held that the petition does not survive for consideration as consideration is deferred until the revision of the master plan, which was then under consideration. The matter was disposed of advising opportunity to mak

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of. Petitioners were at liberty to make fresh representation.

Sri Balakrishna Bhandari Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.43792 OF 2019 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI BALAKRISHNA BHANDARI S/O LATE NANDYAPPA BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS PERUVADIBEEDU HOUSE BERIPADAVU POST PAIVALIKE VILLAGE

¶9

KASARGOD DISTRICT -671 322.

¶10

SRI.RAMANATH BHANDARI S/O LATE NANDYAPPA BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PERUBADIBEEDU HOUSE BERIPADAVU POST PAIVALIKE VILLAGE KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 322.

¶11

BOTH ARE REP.BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI.ISAAC D'SOUZA S/O ROBERT D' SOUZA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PANAJE KODI HOUSE MANOCHI, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 101. ...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MANGALORE.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE URBAN & RURAL PLANNING AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VENKATASATYA NARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R3 SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.07.2019 VIDE ANX-N. DIRECT R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 06.09.2016 FOR CHANGE OF USE OF LAND OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.21/1A(P) MEASURING 17 CENTS SITUATED AT AMBALAMOGARU VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DIST. VIDE ANNX-D.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioners claiming to the absolute owners of the property bearing Survey No.21/1A/(P) measuring 17 cents situated at Ambalamoguru village, Mangalore taluk, D.K.District, had made representation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking reclassification of the zone. In that representation, the property of the petitioners is shown to be located in the red zone. The petitioners are seeking the same to be converted into residential zone.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioners that they have obtained the Khata, made all necessary payments as demanded by the Respondent No.2 and that they are entitled for consideration of their representation, classifying the location of the property from red zone to residential zone.

¶26

Perusal of Annexure-N, a communication by Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1 reveal that in order to consider the request of the petitioners, the entire

¶27

¶28

cartographic rectification is required to be done. Annexure 'N' to the writ petition which is an endorsement issued by the Respondent No.2 to the petitioners states that requisition of the petitioners would be considered at the time of revision of the master plan. The aforesaid Annexure 'N' suggests that consideration of representation of the petitioners is deferred till revision of the master plan and the same has not been rejected.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent/authority submits that the representation of the petitioners would be considered as and when the authorities undertake revision of the master plan. He also submits that the revision of master plan is presently under consideration.

¶30

Submission is taken on record.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid facts situation, nothing survives for consideration in the petition. Petition is disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to make fresh

¶32

¶33

representation, if so advised and same shall be considered by the respondents-authorities as submitted above.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

bnv ct-nn

Sri Balakrishna Bhandari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Balakrishna Bhandari 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. Rajkumar D Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri. Mohammed Ali a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Govindarajan Vs the Executive Officer

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N.Krishnaswamy Iyengar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Raghvendra R Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike