(BY SRI. SUNIL K.N, ADVOCATE) v. If NOC is issued
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:32466
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 s. 19(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D, hereby quashed; - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32466 WP No. 20154 of 2024 iii. Respondents No.3 and 4…
Judgment
(BY SRI. SUNIL K.N, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32466 WP No. 20154 of 2024
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLAN DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-G, AND THEREBY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05.10.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-D SEEKING CONVERSION ORDER FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE RELATING TO THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY NO. 68/24 TO AN EXTENT OF 06 GUNTAS OF JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT WITHIN A TIME FRAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32466 WP No. 20154 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned endorsement issued respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-G based on a communication sent by respondent No.4.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned standing counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
3. The impugned endorsement issued respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner declining entertain an application submitted by the petitioner seeking conversion on the premises that the petition land is already acquired by respondent No.3 prima facie appears to be contrary to the final declaration issued under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'BDA Act'). The petitioner, while assailing the impugned endorsement, has placed on record the 19(1) declaration issued by respondent No.1- State. Referring to the relevant page, he would point out - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:32466 WP No. 20154 of 2024 that the petitioner's land is not at all acquired. On the contrary, Sy.No.68/24 measuring 11 guntas is acquired, which is indicated at Sy.No.169 of the final notification.
4. The endorsement issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is probably based on communication addressed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition. If petitioner's land is not acquired, which is forthcoming from the final notification, the communication vide Annexure-E is contrary to records and therefore, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner declining conversion on the premises that the land is acquired is also not sustainable.
Operative part
For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-D, hereby quashed; - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32466 WP No. 20154 of 2024 iii. Respondents No.3 and 4 shall re-examine the final notification and issue NOC if petitioner's is not acquired. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order; iv. On receipt communication respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner shall proceed further pending upon the communication that would be sent by respondents No.3 and 4; v. If NOC is issued by respondents No.3 and 4, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders on application submitted. vi. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — s. 19(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.