M/S Ink Builders And Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Ink Builders And Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2008

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN '¥'HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN{}AL(jR:§i;;'-VT:.'

DATED TI-HS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER; 2o§ 8 7   «

BEFORE,   

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICI_*;"';1«é!\{}i'I"§v} (§Ls:§:;;A_L  A

WRIT PETITION No  2697 {a.T1f;-,._A£)_f~  
Between: u h' :

M/s Ink Builders and  '4  '
A registered paI'tI1(?£'S1'1i}}f;i'.1I1  1'
Having its placcgc-f__ busixiéssjiat'  --.

Nos. 1 es 2, C3_f1i1r;_:tI1agf1atta"Main'I%?(;ad..;
New Bank C01oI1i'K=~-~':'~_ " -I  7   '
BangaI0re-6_2,*ii__ »'_  '   «_
Rep1wes;e::tted'i:~y ' ""s,1::A.;3a:~$11er
Shri Abdul  

Petitioner.

(  Leeziav--;[,:e§rakfumar, Adv. for

" V'    M'/~s'sreeva_:sa Assbiciates, Adv. )

 A'm:1:k A

1 'A  of Karnataka
" by--- its" Secretary to Govemment
Hmising 85 Urban Development Deptt.

 A' _ML11tistoreyed Building
* ._ __--Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,

Banga1ore~ 1.

"  The Bangaiere Deveiepment Authority

by its Commissioncr
'1'. Chewdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,



V' 19/3A2 of Konanakunte village,

I3anga1ore:~--20.

The Town Piamling Member (TPM)
Bangaioro Deveiopment Authority
'1'. Chowdaiah Road,

Kumara Park West,

Bangalore-20.

The Special Land Acq:iis3itio13'€)iIf1<:er   
Office of the B.D.A.    V  
T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park Wéot,
Banga1ore-20. "

( By Sifi  for R. 1;
Sri K."Krishna, r%.(_.h{['fc);f'--~R.V:2 to R4 )

-I-no

 'Th1'.-S Writ filed under articles 226 and 227

 V'  of 1:116 i..€'1onstitutioh;"praying to quash the order dated
 .2'2«...2_.2Qi}T?',--.4vVidc AI1nexure-K and to direct the second
 __r'e;~3oponVé:?:ni to Consider the application dated 29.1.200'?',

a.1;;'ﬁlcd by the mtitioner.

 Tfiis  1:$otit.ion commg on for pmﬁmmaxy hearm g in

  "~'B'TGr(":>1;p this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The iands in question are Sy. Nos. 19/3A 1B and Uttarahaili Hobli, Bangalore South Taiuk. The said iands originally belonged to one Jameela Khaieei. The said Iands were ﬁ/ 4 converted into noI1--ag'icu1tura1 purpose by V' Seputy Commissioner, Bangalore.';)iirs'ua;1t to order dated 5.7. 3976. The said Ja1neelst.__Khsi'eei» Is ade =an of these lands to A1 Ameen a regstered gift deed dates 4._9."iS¥s8:'j.V 'v"'The s.aid"Medica1 Trust, after obtaining sold the aforesaid V. Private Limited' 'e'p¥§11's§.:1§111t'V':i%)"'a"d,ee§1 .5: dated 2.1.1934. It appearsyvvthe .sa'icL!..rtJ:'1::t2a.j11ed necessary sanctions and permissive" to 'sef_u'p':LV an industry in the lands in V' ques'§.i'on,.*-L'. to say that pursuant to the 'v tr:.>:ti .'.E'icai:ioI1 dated 6.4.1989, the subject matte? of . writ petition along with several other "*"'4.__Via1j1ds, ﬁasnely, Sy. Nos. 18/2132, 18/28 and 19/38 of ,, viilage was to be acquired. The subject fj vs.ma}:ter of the writ petition in w.P. Nos. 5732-5734] 1997 VA " " weI'e the ianés in question. This court has quashed the ﬁnal notiﬁcation. Thereafter, it appears, the B.D.A. has not issued any notiﬁcation in respect. of these lands. xﬂ Z But, however, what is sig1if:cant is that the matter of the present writ petition i.e., Sy. H and 19/ 3B remain intact. t noticed that Sy.No. 19/3A was 19/1B. It appears the petitipnsi*s,_"'i:ave.'v:

conversion of ﬁve lansls 2 was made to the B.D.A.V s_i_5AK1fS'13.nt to the endors¢1';'n"é11t.A: is not acquired, but hoﬁ§?'eVer was ciariﬁed stating that the land iniieed is 'vaC(:;1iir'ed. In so far as conversion is ~' - fioncéinsgzd, an H éiitiorsement is issued which is Writ petition at Annaxure-K indicating thaxpsinctx. two Lands are aoquimd pursuant to the 'n9tif'1cat.i__rSn the question of granting change of land user A not arise. Inéeed an option was given to the t patitioner to make a fresh application fer change of user deleting these twr) lands. @-

2. Ms. Leena Levalmmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier wouid disclose that the said land was i Hence, the impugled endomemeht endorsement issued by the V

3. Mr. Krishna, learned the respondents submits " two Hlands are

4. 011 lasti"oeeasiioii,44the respondent was directed _ to produce the ..:iotiﬁo21tion to show that the subject rfiatter "writ petition was acquired for the purpose Bﬂanashankaﬁ V Stage. Indeed the ﬁnal made availabie. It is to be noticed that the ixiotiiieation is of the year 1999. These two lands aequized. It is rather too late in the day for the 'V V isetitioner to seek quashing of the ﬁnal notification of the year 1999. But, however, it is to be noticed that on 4/ J the assumptien that these two lands are not acquired, ﬂ an appiication is made for change of user of?'these..:1aIids','i Indeed the contention of the pet'i£i:io:?2er'..é is; « earlier occasion an endorsement.__v¢'as issued ~gra2;1ti;f.1g' Ilrovisional conversion, but«:V1:1oWe\."rei* swas reoaiied after noticingﬁghat efe'iaeouired.

5. I am of the View is required to be re--doI1_e A respondents shali issug. indicating the date of acquisition:_"snVe1 data to show that the laﬂd is no' longer airaiiabley with the petitioner for conversion .of«cha.ng€ user.

Co;3_seqiienﬂy, the petition stands disposed of the respondents to reconsider the ease of the VA Tiefaetitiioner afresh. Rule is issued and made absolute to ...t.§e extent indicated above. Sdf"

Judge 5'99

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court