Allowed

A K Jayachandra Reddy v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2023WP/59461/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order declining his request to convert land to non-agricultural user. The court held the order inconsistent with Section 14A of the 1860 Act and Section 95 of the 1964 Act. Favorable treatment granted to similar adjoining lands supported equivalence. The petition succeeded.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned Endorsement dated 18.08.2016 and remittal of matter for fresh consideration within eight weeks.

A K Jayachandra Reddy Vs the Bangalore Development… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.59461 OF 2016 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A.K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY SON OF A KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 186/38, 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI BUILDING, R.V. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KP WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶13

2 . THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KP WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶14

3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KIRAN C.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; MR. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2016 AT ANNEX-D AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER HIS REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE FORTHWITH; AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court seeking the quashment of BDA's Endorsement dated 18.08.2016 (Annexure-D) whereby his request for conversion of the land to the non-agricultural user has been declined stating that the said request can be considered only if & when the revision of Master Plan is undertaken & accomplished. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of the Court to the text of Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 argues that the Endorsement is liable to be voided since there is no legal interdiction for consideration of his client’s claim for conversion, sans any revision of Master Plan.

¶22

¶23

Further learned counsel for the Petitioner also

¶24

points out that in respect of two adjoining lands, conversion has already been accorded, all facts having been absolutely similar and therefore, his client cannot be subjected to a step-motherly treatment at the hands of statutory authorities. In support of his contention, he banks upon the Apex Court decision in E.P. ROYAPPA vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, AIR 1974 SC 555.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 opposes the Petition contending that till after revision of the Master Plan is accomplished, the subject land of the Petitioner continues to be agricultural and therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned Endorsement.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶27

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the reason shown in the impugned Endorsement does not accord with the intent & content of Section 14A of the 1961

¶28

¶29

Act read with Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Had it been otherwise, the answering Respondent would not have accorded conversion in respect of two adjoining lands as rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner. The like cases have to be decided alike by the statutory authorities in view of ROYAPPA supra in the absence of any repugnant factors and in this case, there are no such factors indicated.

¶30

In view of the above, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned Endorsement; the matter is remitted to the portals of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for consideration afresh for conversion of his land to non-agricultural user within a period of eight weeks. All contentions are kept open.

¶31

Now, no costs.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

A K Jayachandra Reddy v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A K Jayachandra Reddy v. the Bangalore Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anasuyamma Vs the Bengaluru Development

Smt Sahana Subramanya Vs State of Karnataka

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Nanjundappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Dyavanna @ Dyavappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.C.N.Chitti Babu Vs the State of Karnataka