Shri. Marutirao S/O Somnath Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102140 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI. MARUTIRAO S/O. SOMNATH MOTANKAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAM PLOT NO.21, BEHIND ANIL SALGAONKAR’S BUNGLOW, NAVO VADDOGOGAL, SALCETE, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403601.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELAGAVI, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶16

THE BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016, REPRESENTEED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M.A. HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

i. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING BENPRA/BHUSWA/YO 62/2005-06 DATED 12.04.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY RESP.NO.3 IN SO FAR AS R.S. NO.145*/1 MEASURING 14 GUNTAS SITUATED AT ANAGOLA VILLAGE TALUKA AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI (PETITIONER CONCERNED)

¶24

ii. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED 30/07/2022 (JULY 30^TH 2022), 8.06.48 PM OF R.S. NO.145*1 OF AT ANAGOLA VILLAGE TALUKA AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2.

¶25

iii. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ISSUE “DEEMED CONVERSION” ORDER AS R.S. NO.145*1 MEASURING 14 GUNTHAS AT ANAGOLA VILLAGE TALUKA AND DISTRICT BELAGAVI SAME CAME WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE BELAGAVI CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI LIMITS AS PER MASTER PLAN 2021 (REVISION-II) OF BELAGAVI APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT VIDE NO.UDD/83/BEMAPRA/2013 DATED 15/02/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶30

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the Notification dated 12.04.2007 bearing No.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

BENPRA/BHUSWA/YO 62/2005-06 passed by respondent No.3 in so far as petitioner’s land bearing R.S. No.145*/1 measuring 14 guntas situate at Anagola village, Belagavi district and also the endorsement dated 30.07.2022 issued by respondent No.2 and mandamus to respondent No.2 to issue deemed conversion order.

¶34

2. Petitioner is the absolute owner of agricultural land bearing R.S.No.145*/1 measuring 14 guntas situated at Anagol village, Belagavi district and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. The petitioner is paying the property tax regularly. This being the state of affairs, respondents No.3 and 4 issued Preliminary Notification dated 12.04.2007 under Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1978, for acquisition of the land whereunder the petitioner’s land is also acquired.

¶35

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to issuance of this notification, no action is initiated and no proceedings have taken place and nothing has moved further. The property of the petitioner in

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the meanwhile has come within the limits of Belagavi City Corporation as per Master Plan 2021 (Revision-II) approved by the Government vide No.UDD/83/BEMAPRA/2013 dated 15.02.2014 and is notified for residential use.

¶39

4. This being the state of affairs, after issuance of the Notification, initially, on 12.04.2007 by respondents No.3

¶40

and 4, no further action is initiated, neither the final notification is issued nor the land of the petitioner is utilized for the purpose for which it was notified. Therefore, the petitioner vehemently contends that since the respondents have not initiated any further proceedings after issuance of Preliminary Notification, the purpose for which it is to be utilized having not been ventured upon, the same would lapse and the notification will have to be quashed. He further contends that, in a similar situation, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C.Rangegowda vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2015) 4 Karnataka Law Journal 64 and in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Shri Arvind Narayan Kalghatagi and others, in Writ Appeal No.100071/2021 disposed

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of on 23.04.2024, has quashed the notification and the said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nitya Gopal Babshet vs. the State of Karnataka, in Writ Appeal No.30044/2013 and connected appeals wherein at paragraph 11, it has held as under:

¶44

“ 11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the said time limit also equally applies to acquisition proceeding? The Apex Court has held that in the absence of a specific provisions in these enactment, the provision contained in the Land Acquisition Act cannot be the read into the provision and such time limit cannot be prescribed, but at the same time it is held merely because no such time limit is prescribed, the Authorities cannot take their own time to complete the acquisition proceedings. If the law do not specify the time limit within which the official acts have to be completed, it is settled law that it has to be done within a reasonable time. In that context, the Apex Court has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions a reasonable time for issuing final notification may be taken as two years. This Court following the aforesaid judgment in the case of SRI.H.N.SHIVANNA S/O.LATE NANJAPPA & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER disposed of on 20^th NOVEMBER 2012 has held that even in the absence of a specific provisions, a reasonable period for issuing final notification has to be two years, though not with exact mathematical preposition.”

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

5. On a plain reading of the facts and the judgments relied, I find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to the issuance of Preliminary Notification in the year 2007, no action is taken by respondents No.3 and 4 for issuance of Final Notification and nothing has proceeded further. In the case on hand where such a long period has lapsed from 2007 and no action is taken for issuance of final notification, it cannot be said that the petitioner would have to wait till eternity. It is

¶48

to be assumed that a reasonable period for issuance of notification is to be taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a good reasonable ground to allow this petition. Accordingly, the petitioner’s case would have to be considered favorably.

¶49

7. The other grievance of the petitioner is that he made an application before respondent No.2 for conversion of his land for residential purpose on the basis of the property falling within the Belagavi City Corporation limits

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

and the same is not considered for the reason that the property of the petitioner is notified under the Preliminary Notification dated 12.04.2007 under Section 17 of the Act. It is his contention that the respondents ought to have acted upon on the basis of the land of the petitioner falling within the municipal corporation limits, which would come within the ambit of Section 95(2)(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and it would be a deemed conversion once the property falls within the municipal corporation limits.

¶53

8. Learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri M.A.Hulyal for respondents No.3 and 4, do not dispute the preliminary notification having been issued in the year 2007 and also do not dispute the fact that no further action is initiated pursuant to the Preliminary Notification, 2007, and so also the land not being utilized for the purpose for which it was notified.

¶54

9. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The petition is allowed.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8298 WP No. 102140 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ii) The Notification bearing No.BENPRA/BHUSWA/YO -62/2005-06 dated 12.04.2007 vide Annexure-B insofar as R.S.No.145*/1 measuring 14 guntas situated at Anagol village, Belagavi taluk and district is hereby quashed.

¶60

iii) The endorsement issued by respondent No.2 dated 30.07.2022 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.

¶61

iv) A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to issue the conversion certificate in respect of petitioner’s property bearing R.S.No.145*/1, by collecting applicable fee as it would amount to deemed conversion under section 95(2)(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶62

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶63

Kmv CT-MCK

Shri. Marutirao S/O Somnath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Marutirao S/O Somnath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Basavanni S/O Ningappa Hukkeri R/by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni Vs Superintendent of Police

Shamsunder James Deodhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ferro Vaishnavi Ferro Sand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Kasturewwa W/O Late Somapp Annigere Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O Subhas Soodi Vs Smt. Basamma W/O Subhas Sudi