Sri. Ganesh Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY DATED 10.11.2022 BEARING NO. MYNPRA/N.YO.SHA/VA.V.N/2022/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.MYNPRA/N.YO.SHA/VA.V.N/2022/23 dated 10.11.2022 issued by respondent No.2. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant approval for formation of a layout in survey No.47/4 of Lingambudhi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶29

The petitioners claim that the land bearing survey No.47/4 (old survey No.47/2) situated in Lingambudhi Palya, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, measuring 03 acres was converted for non-agricultural residential use by the Deputy Commissioner

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Mysore, vide order bearing No.ALN(1)CR367/2005-06 dated 07.04.2010. They purchased the aforesaid 03 acres of land in terms of a sale deed dated 31.10.2013. Thereafter, they sold 01 acre to Smt.Chikkathayamma. They submitted a representation dated 18.03.2021 before the respondent No.2 for sanction of a plan to form sites in the remaining 02 acres of land in survey No.47/4. The respondent No.2 approved the request and called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,22,200/- in terms of its communication dated 03.08.2022. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited the said sum with the respondent No.2 on 01.09.2022. However, the respondent No.2 in terms of the impugned endorsement dated 10.11.2022 rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that they had alienated 01 acre and had bifurcated the land without obtaining permission from the appropriate authority. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶34

there is no embargo in law against the petitioners alienating a portion of their land that was earlier converted for non- agricultural purposes. He contends that the impugned endorsement is issued on the basis of a communication issued by the State Government

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

dated 24.08.2022, wherein it was stated that whenever converted land is bifurcated without obtaining appropriate permission from the planning authority, no plan shall be sanctioned in respect of the bifurcated land.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this condition is applicable is only in respect of sites that may be formed in the layout and does not, in any manner, affect the rights of the petitioners to sell the land that was converted. He contends that the respondent No.2 is bound to consider the request of the petitioners for sanction of a layout plan in respect of the remaining extent of land, as the entire land was already converted for nonagricultural purposes. He submits that there is no provision in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1961' for short), which prohibits the petitioners from selling a portion of the land which was converted for non-agricultural purposes. He therefore contends that the communication between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed.

¶40

The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2, which

¶41

has filed a detailed statement of objections inter alia contending

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

that the petitioners had purchased 03 acres of land in terms of a sale deed dated 31.10.2013 and subsequently sold 01 acre of the said land to Smt. Chikkathayamma by a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2021. It is further submitted that the petitioners had filed an application seeking approval of a layout plan for the formation of residential sites over the remaining 02 acres of land.

¶45

While considering the application of the petitioners, respondent No.2 called upon them to pay a sum of Rs.5,22,200/as processing fee, which the petitioners deposited on 01.09.2022. It is stated by the respondent No.2 that at its general meeting held on 20.03.2021 resolved that if the converted land is unauthorisedly bifurcated or partitioned by its owners and if the extent of the partitioned land exceeds 14 guntas, then an application for formation of a layout could be considered and sanctioned in accordance with law.

¶46

In accordance with the said resolution, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 03.08.2022 calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,22,200/-. Thereafter, respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 24.08.2022 seeking clarification from respondent No.2 regarding the

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

resolution passed on 20.03.2021 (referred supra). It was stated in the said communication that sanction cannot be granted for formation of a layout over the land which was unauthorisedly bifurcated or partitioned after the conversion. In response to the communication from respondent No.1, respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement.

¶50

The respondent No.2 contends that the impugned endorsement was issued in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the order of conversion. It is further submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 17(2A) of the Act, 1961 and Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned endorsement refusing to grant permission for formation of the layout.

¶51

(i) The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that a perusal of the order of conversion clearly shows that the petitioners could not have alienated, encumbered or bifurcated the land without obtaining prior approval of a layout plan. He contends that it is incumbent upon every person who has got the land converted for non-

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

agricultural purposes to first submit a layout plan for the land and thereafter encumber or alienate the land.

¶56

(ii) He further submits that since the petitioners alienated a portion of the land after it was converted for nonagricultural purposes without obtaining permission from the competent authority, their request cannot be granted. He further contends that the respondent No.2 is bound to ensure that planned development is carried out in accordance with law within the limits of planning authority. He contends that if the petitioners are permitted to bifurcate the land after conversion without submitting a layout plan, it would result in disorderly development, as no reservation for civic amenities could be ensured.

¶57

(iii) He further contends that in respect of 01 acre of land which is alienated to Smt. Chikkathayamma there can be no provision for civic or other amenities which would further contribute to unplanned and disorderly development in the area. He therefore submits that the impugned endorsement is just and proper and aligns with the objective of ensuring

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

orderly development within the limits of the urban development authority.

¶61

The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and submitted that the communication dated 24.08.2022 was issued in the light of the conditions stipulated in the order of conversion. He submitted that, accordingly, respondent No.2 could not sanction a layout plan in respect of the land which is bifurcated by the petitioners.

¶62

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶63

It is not in dispute that the land in question was converted for non-agricultural purposes and that the conversion was for the purpose of forming residential sites. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.47/4 measuring 03 acres, out of which, they sold 01 acre to Smt.Chikkathayamma. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners continue to be the owners of the remaining 02 acres

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

of land. One of the conditions stipulated in the order of conversion issued by the Deputy Commissioner, is as follows:

¶67

"3. F d«ÄÃ¤£À°è GzÉÝÃ²¹gÀÄªÀ §qÁªÀuÉ £ÀPÉë ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß (¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ/£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ/EvÁå¢) gÀªÀjAzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹PÉÆAqÀÄ D£ÀAvÀgÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÉÆAqÀ £ÀPÉëUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¯ÉÃOmï ¥Áè¤UÉ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁqÀPÀÆqÀzÀÄ."

¶68

A perusal of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not indicate that once the land is converted for non-agricultural purposes, the owner looses the right to encumber or alienate any portion of such converted land. There is no provision under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 entitling the owner to make a request before the planning authority or the deputy commissioner for alienation of a portion of converted land.

¶69

The condition No.3 referred supra clearly prohibits the owner from alienating any sites formed in a layout without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the competent development authority. This Court, however, finds no provision in the Act, 1961 which prohibits bifurcation of converted land. Per se, Section 17 of Act, 1961 pertains to the bifurcation of plots

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:41863 WP No. 3194 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

which are part of a layout, and therefore does not apply to land that has been converted for non-agricultural purposes.

¶74

Therefore, the communication dated 24.08.2022 addressed by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 stating that no layout plan can be sanctioned over bifurcated land is without authority of law. Consequently, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's request on the basis of the said communication also suffers from lack of authority.

¶75

In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement dated 10.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed and the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners and if it is otherwise not prohibited in law, the respondent No.2 shall sanction a layout for formation of residential sites in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶76

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶77

BKN/HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Sri. Ganesh Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ganesh Gowda 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Prashanth Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Selvaraj v Vs Sri G Munivenkatappa

Smt. H R Shanthamma Vs the Chief Officer

Sri Rajashekar Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Gangalakshmamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri Parasmal Vs the Commissioner