Dismissed

Mamatha W/O Dr. Mahesh Umachagi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/107851/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of non-agricultural conversion order granted to predecessor due to sale of part of the land. Court held that violation warrants cancellation but liberty granted to seek fresh order if proper facilities provided.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to make fresh representation for conversion of land.

Mamatha W/O Dr. Mahesh Umachagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12990 WP No. 107851 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 107851 OF 2016 (LB-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MAMATHA W/O. DR. MAHESH UMACHAGI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHASTRI COLONY, BHAGYA NAGAR-583 231, TAL & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL-583 231.

¶14

ROHAN HADIMANI T Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶15

KOPPAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL-583 231.

¶16

PATTAN PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR, BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, BHAGYA NAGAR-583 231, TAL & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI ASHOK KATTEMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12990 WP No. 107851 of 2016

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE RESOLUTION DATED 06.01.2016 PASSED BY SECOND RESPONDENT-KUDA PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND SO ALSO THE ENDORSEMENT/LETTER DATED 29.01.2016 IN NO. KONAPRA/TANTRIKA/BINSHETKI/435 2015-16 ISSUED BY IT (KUDA) TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO CANCEL N.A. ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO ENDORSEMENT DATED:09.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE PREDECESSOR OF THIRD RESPONDENT NAMELY GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR, TAL: & DIST: KOPPAL IN NO. GRAPAMBHA/HIMBARAHA/201516 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 PATTAN PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR (SUCCESSOR OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHAGYA NAGAR) TO ISSUE PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING IN PLOT NO.1/1 OUT OF N.A. LAND SY.NO.14/9 OF BHAGYA NAGAR, TALUKA AND DISTRICT KOPPAL.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12990 WP No. 107851 of 2016

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The predecessor in title of the petitioner obtained necessary conversion order in respect of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.14/9, Koppal. The said permission is granted considering the entire 10 guntas as one plot. However, the predecessor in title of the petitioner did not put any construction on the said plot, but instead sold about 232.26 meters of land in favour of the petitioner herein. Hence, on the ground that the sale of a portion of the land violates the terms of conversion, respondent No.2 has passed the resolution to cancel the permission accorded to the predecessor in title of the petitioner in converting the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

The case of the petitioner is that, he is entitled to purchase a portion of the land and he is not required to purchase the entire land for which conversion order has been passed and that it cannot be a ground for initiation of the proceedings to cancel the order.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12990 WP No. 107851 of 2016

¶29

Per contra, the advocate for the respondents submits that permission was accorded to the predecessor in title of the petitioner to develop entire 10 guntas of land as a single residential plot and he could not have sub-divided the area and alienated the same and that act of the predecessor in title of the petitioner warrants cancellation of the conversion order because the said sub-division of the area may be done in violation of the law concerned without providing proper road and other facilities as may be required in law.

¶30

There is substance in the contentions raised by the respondents. Urban areas needs to be developed as per the norms contemplated in laws. Admittedly, the predecessor in title of the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the conversion order and hence, a resolution has been passed by the second respondent recommending the cancellation of the conversion order. I do not find any error in the same. However, the respondent-authorities are duly bound to consider the request of the petitioner and other persons who own the 10 guntas of land, if they make any

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12990 WP No. 107851 of 2016

¶32

representation to the authorities concerned and if it is found that the property has been sub-divided and sold by providing proper access to the said sub-divided properties and other facilities as contemplated in law, the authorities are bound to grant fresh conversion order in respect of the land concerned. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the authorities for conversion of the land concerned and if land in question is sought to be developed in accordance with law, respondents-authorities shall pass the conversion order on the land for non-agricultural purposes in accordance with law.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Mamatha W/O Dr. Mahesh Umachagi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamatha W/O Dr. Mahesh Umachagi 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

Mrs.Lavanya Narasimha Joshi Vs the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Bibijan Bashasab Mulla

Bebijan Bashasab Mulla Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec)

Dr Susheela v Kerudi Vs Elctricity Ombudsman Bangalore

Sri. Ganesh Vs the Commissioner

Basavaraj Bhalchandra Gireddi Vs Shivabasu Balappa Handigund