Maleppa S/O Mallapa Mundasnavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Maleppa S/O Mallapa Mundasnavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1566

Bench: S.G. Pandit

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    DHARWAD BENCH

            Dated this the 5th day of June 2020

                          Before

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

             Writ Petition No.106397/2018 &
       W.P. Nos.108472-108474 of 2019 (KLR-RES)

Between

1.   Maleppa S/O Mallapa Mundasnavar
     Aged About 82 Years
     Occ. Retired Engineer
     R/O Navodaya Nagar
     Saptapur, Dharwad
     Tq & Dist. Dharwad

2.   Sri.Veerabhadragouda
     S/o Basanagouda Patil
     Aged About 85 Years
     Occ.Retired Government Servant
     R/O Navodya Nagar, Saptapur,
     Dharwad, Tq & Dist. Dharwad

3.   Sri. Shaikh Sirajuddin
     S/O Abdul Rahaman
     Aged About 70 Years
     Occ.Retired Engineer
     R/O Navodya Nagar,
     Saptapur, Dharwad,
     Tq & Dist. Dharwad.

4.   Sri. Gulla Shivanand
     S/O Veerabhadrappa
     Aged About 73 Years
                             2



     Occ.Pensioner
     R/O Navodya Nagar, Saptapur,
     Dharwad, Tq & Dist. Dharwada.          ...Petitioners

(By Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, Advocate)

And

1.   The State Of Karnataka
     By Its Secretary To
     Urban Development
     Department, Vidhana Veedhi
     Bengaluru-1

2.   The Hubli Dharwad Urban
     Development Authority
     Represented By Its Commissioner
     Navanagar, Dharwad
     Dist. Dharwad

3.   The Deputy Director of
     Land Records and Technical Director
     to the office of the
     Deputy Commissioner
     Near K.C.Park, Dharwad
     Tq & Dist. Dharwad

4.   The Assistant Director
     Of Land Records
     Near K.C. Park, Dharwad
     Tq & Dist. Dharwad

5.   The Tahasildar
     Dharwad Taluka
     Dharwad.                              ...Respondents

(By Sri. Ramesh B.Chigari, HCGP for R1 & R3-R5
    Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath, Advocate for R2)
                             3



      These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution Of India praying to issue a writ of
mandamus to the respondentsno.3 to 5 to undertake the
process of issuance of fresh KJP in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.37/1 measuring 6 acres 31 guntas situated at
Saptapur Village, Tq & Dist: Dharwad as per the approved
layout plan dated 20.07.2013 produced at Annexure-A
and further to enter the names of the petitioners in the
property records.

     These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, Court made the following:


                         ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 to consider the representation at Annexure-D dated 23.07.2018 and to undertake the process of issuance of fresh KJP in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.37/1 measuring 6 acres 31 guntas situated at Saptapur village, Taluk and District Dharwad as per the revised approved layout plan dated 20.07.2013.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned 4 High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, and perused the writ petition papers.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land in question was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose in the year 1975. Thereafter, a layout was formed and the layout plan was approved by the 2nd respondent-Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority in the year 1979. The petitioners are the purchasers of the plots in the layout approved by the 2nd respondent. The Kam-Jasthi Patrike (for short 'KJP') was prepared by respondent Nos.3 to 5. Subsequently, it is submitted that the layout plan was cancelled by the government as it was not tallying with the KJP. Thereafter, respondent No.2 in the year 2013 approved the revised layout plan. As per the revised layout plan, the authorities were required to prepare fresh KJP for the revised layout. As the authorities were of the opinion that the KJP prepared earlier was in existence, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner for 5 cancellation of the earlier KJP. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 17.07.2018 cancelled the earlier KJP prepared in February, 1994. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a representation to respondent Nos.3 to 5 praying for preparation of fresh KJP sketch. The learned counsel contend that no orders have been passed on the representation submitted on 23.07.2018. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, it is seen that the KJP conducted by the respondents in pursuance of earlier approved layout plan was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-C dated 17.07.2018. It is also an admitted fact that in the year 2013, respondent No.2 approved the revised layout plan. When the layout plan was revised and approved subsequently, it was necessary to conduct a fresh KJP sketch in accordance with the revised layout plan. In that regard, the petitioners state that they have submitted a 6 representation dated 23.07.2018. However, no acknowledgment is produced for having submitted the said representation. Hence, the petitioners are directed to make one more representation to respondent Nos.3 and 5 requesting for conducting fresh KJP sketch in pursuance of the revised approved layout plan. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said representation would be submitted within 15 days. If such representation is received by respondents 3 and 5 and if the representation dated 23.07.2018 is not disposed of so far, both the representations be considered expeditiously and orders be passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court