Allowed

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2024WP/12642/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting his residential building plan application because he refused to relinquish a property portion to the City Corporation for road widening. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the endorsement, and directed respondents to reconsider the plan without insisting on free cost surrender.

What did the court decide?

Quashed endorsement dated 19.05.2023; Directed respondents to consider application within one month without insisting on deed of relinquishment free of cost.

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 12642 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. AVINASHGOWDA D.M., S/O SRI. D.H. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, DEVANGI COMPLEX, JAIL CIRCLE, KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHIVAMOGGA CITY CORPORATION, TANK MOHALLA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ASHWINI S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SHIMANAPAA KAA PAA AAA V-1 C.R 07/2023-24 DATED 19/05/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-G rejecting the application for sanction of residential building plan and also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application dated Nil vide AnnexureC for sanction of building plan.

¶22

Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:

¶23

The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Site No.1, Municipal Katha No.132/2372 and PID

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶25

No.36830 measuring 58 x 100 feet situated at Ward No.32, 1^st Cross, Hosamane Extension, Shivamogga City, having purchased the property in question from its erstwhile owner one K.S. Ravindra under sale deed registered on 08.07.2021 vide Annexure-A, and the revenue entries having been made by the revenue authorities in the name of petitioner for having paid upto date taxes i.e., the katha certificate is produced vide Annexure-B. The petitioner submitted an application on 10.11.2022 seeking approval of the building plan. The respondent No.2 has not approved the plan sanction. Further petitioner submitted a representation to 2^nd respondent seeking to consider his application dated 10.11.2022. In response to which the 2^nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-

¶26

G. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G filed this writ petition.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶29

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned

¶30

counsel for the respondents.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner shall relinquish his right over the portion of the property to Shivamogga City Corporation through deed of relinquishment. He submits that the respondent No.2 has no right to impose such a condition while sanctioning the plan. Further in order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

¶32

OTHERS REPORTED IN ILR 2022 KAR 1461. He submits that the respondent No.2 may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner without insisting for the execution of deed of relinquishment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶36

supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has submitted an application seeking approval for a residential plan sanction. The said application is rejected on the ground that the petitioner should surrender portion of the property to Shivamogga City Corporation through the deed of relinquishment, as the property is earmarked for the purpose of widening of road from the existing 9 meters to 12 meters as per the revised Master plan under Section 12(1)(b) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of A RUN K UMAR B.C. (referred supra), wherein this Court held that requiring the owner to surrender portion of the property right, earmarked for widening of road free of

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶40

cost, for sanctioning of the building plan is violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India and further the Coordinate bench of this Court has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T. PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN AIR 2011 SC 3430 . The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the owner of immovable property cannot be deprived of his property by mere executive order without any specific legal authority or supported by competent legislation. In the absence of specific legal authority or support by the competent legislation, the respondents cannot insist the petitioners to surrender the portion of the land free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment. The condition mentioned in the citizen portal vide Annexure-A1 is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. I concur with the order passed in the case of ARUN KUMAR B.C (referred supra).

¶41

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:34001 WP No. 12642 of 2023

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The endorsement dated 19.05.2023 vide Annexure-G is set aside.

¶47

iii) The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner without insisting the petitioner to surrender the portion of property of the petitioner free of cost by executing the deed of relinquishment.

¶48

iv) The respondents are directed to consider the application within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶50

GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Avinashgowda D. M., v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri a Gnananandhan Vs Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited

S. Ramakrishna Rai Vs Smt.Kasturi

Sri Abdul Saleem Vs the Commissioner

P B Durgappa Vs Smt Siddaveeramma

Smt. Nagarathna H R Vs the State of Karnataka

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs Avipriyansh Construction Pvt. Ltd.