Dismissed

Dr K Venkatagiri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/1929/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider a representation for converting agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The court held that the representation did not comply with Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 and was thus not valid for consideration. The petition was disposed of, with the petitioner advised to file a fresh appl

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is advised to apply for conversion of land under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Dr K Venkatagiri Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1929 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. K. VENKATAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE M. B. KRISHNA REDDY, R/A SURVEY NO 33/2A, HANUMAIYYA COMPLEX, 80 FEET RING ROAD, NEAR MALATHALLI BUS STAND, BENGALURU SOUTH, BANGALORE – 560056.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NITIN A. M.,ADV.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶12

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562110.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-ISSUE WRIT MANDATING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER I.E, ANNEXURE-B AND ACCORDINGLY CONVERT THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1929 of 2023

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶21

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Nitin.A.M., for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.V.Seshu for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is before this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-B dated 19.01.2023.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 1929 of 2023

¶26

Under Annexure-B dated 19.01.2023 which is

¶27

addressed to the Tahasildar, Nelamangala Taluk, District Collector, Bengaluru Rural and Nelamangala Development Authority, the request of the petitioner is for conversion of the land and permission to pay the requisite amount for the purpose of conversion by raising the challan.

¶28

Sy.No.125/1A2, New Sy.No.125/3 measuring 2 acres situated at Mallarabanavadi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District is an agricultural land. Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 1964 Act) provides procedure for conversion of agricultural land for other purposes. SubSection (2) of Section 95 of 1964 Act requires the occupant of the land to apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner who may subject to the provisions and the Rules made thereunder, refuse permission or grant it on such condition as he may think fit. The petitioner would have to make application to the concerned Deputy

¶29

¶30

WP No. 1929 of 2023

¶31

Commissioner under Section 95 of 1964 Act. Annexure-B is not an application submitted under Section 95 of 1964 Act. The representation at Annexure-B dated 19.01.2023 is not in accordance with Section 95 of 1964 Act. Therefore, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not under legal obligation to consider the same. It is open for the petitioner to apply for conversion of land under Section 95 of 1964 Act and if such application is made, I am sure the respondent-authorities would consider the same and pass appropriate order.

¶32

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Dr K Venkatagiri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K Venkatagiri 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 K J Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Chandramma Vs State of Karnataka

Varalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L a Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shanthakumar D S Vs State of Karnataka