IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ1V§.E;T._V'
DATED THIS THE 8?" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2099' A ;V---f E
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I-IN.:'NA(}z'&MC)I'{AXNE'DA3-A..,_'
"LB-REQ;
WRIT PETTTION No. V:1'84.4v3/2607'
BETWEEN :
S1'IH.HUCHAMMA
W/O LATE BHEERATAH ~
AGED ABOUT 61~"1"Eg_SRS 1
NO 395, Vn\IA¥AKAf;jROAD_~ _
JANATHA NAGA_R*_, A 'S
MYSORE--23_,E _ " ...PETITIONER
(By Sri. 'E
AND :
- ,1 OE K'ARN,CAT'AKA
._ 'REP' BY ITS SECRETARY
" URBANDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
E *-"M S'vBU,1_LD'EN'G
V A BAN_OALORE--1
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
A A. ,_AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER
MYSORE--570001
" MYSORE DIST
rf\-""
/'
K2
3 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY MEMBER
MYSORE URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MYSORE--570001
MYSORE DIST
4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERI
MYSORE DIST -, «.
MYSORE-570001.
(By Sri. DEVADAS, AGA, FOR R1 (ERA
Sri. P S MANJUNATH, ADVNKFOR.IR'2'&'R3'}A._
THIS WRIT PETITION ISEILEDTUNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF_.TVHEj'"CONSTITUT_IO1'~I 'OIWINDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO SET'+'As'ID'E GTHE..AEN1:?eOR»SEMENT DT. 6.11.2006
TSSUED BY TIViE"*R:3 VIDEANNEXURE A BY ISSUING A
WRIT OF CER7i71ORiI°IRI_4'A.S ILLEGAL IN so FAR As
}NSISTI_NG T-IHE.PE'i"ITIONER"TG PRODUCE THE ORDER OP
CONVERSION FOR_TI':1.E.PURPOSE OF APPROVING THE SITE
PLAN OP THE.._PETITI_ONER.AND ETC.
.»*ItJpi0IS" WI§1T._______PETITION COMING ON FOR
V.PREL"IMIN"AR"Y..HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
"PASSED THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER
x j In zthigt’ writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the
_1Iature. certiorari to Set aside the endorsement dated 06.11.2006
I ‘eissued by the second respondent as per Annexure A refusing to
i7″~e””S”
sanction the building plan to the petitioner in respect of the land in
question on the ground that the petitioner has not produced an order
of conversion of the land from agricultural purpose
agricultural purpose.
2. Petitioner and her family members Were. the owners_of”3’6
guntas of land in survey No. 201 of ,B_hogad~i. Village, talulcfiv of
Subsequently the land in question cam:e’t»within”the”*foVEd {irban
Land Ceiling Act. The Deputny vide order dated
()8.03.l99l forfeited certain land in the ground
that the same ofthe tirban land ceiling limits. What
remained in’tl1ehands’r0f”the petitioner and her family was only to an
extent of léyguntas .o_fVlVand.’1n order to put up construction on this
landthe peltitioner approached the respondents for sanction of
the impugned endorsement the respondents
have rejected “die prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the
“‘petitioner isirequired to produce the order of conversion of land from
(At/’~«””‘
agricultural purposes to non–agricultural purposes. Hence, this-‘:,_vvri.t
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for both the parties_.andi.<§eru'sed the "
entire writ papers
4. 1_n identical circumstances; this Courtiin thelvcaseiiof Stjatevl
Government Employees’ Cooperativei’H.ousi_ng “Limited Vs.
Hubli Dharwad Urban DeVeloi;$inentl_iAAutliorityiILR £999 Kat. 1797
held that the land situated withinhtlie urbianiiagglonieisation seized to
be an agricultural the.lai1d bean agricultural land
then the1-cfiis noneed’Vforvjseekingeonversion of the said land for non
agricultural purposes.”~In “siiey;/the dictum of a Division Bench of
this Court ,in th’e.__decision referred to above, the impugned
in endorslementils _li’able to be quashed.
stated above, the following;
0 R D E R
x j i. ll :Writ petition is hereby allowed.
€'””‘”/K’