Karnataka High Court
Kirloskar Electrical Company Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132
WP No. 103465 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.103465 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD.,
PB NO.112, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL
AND CORPORATE MR. VIJAYAKUMAR ANGADI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. HUBLI - DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580025,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
GIRIJA A OFFICE OF THE ADLR, HUBLI,
BYAHATTI DHARWAD DISTRICT-580020.
Digitally ...RESPONDENTS
signed by
GIRIJA A (BY SRI.GANGADHAR J.M., ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
BYAHATTI
SRI.PRAVEEN UPPAR, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI.G.I.GACJCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN TO FURNISH
AUTHENTICATED SKETCH OF THE LANDS BEARING SY.NO.88/B,
88P/1 AND 89 OF RAYANALA VILLAGE, MEASURING 31 ACRES 24
GUNTAS, TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND FURTHER DIRECT THE
THIRD RESPONDENT TO ISSUE P.T.SHEET IN RESPECT OF THE SAID
LANDS TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND
ETC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132
WP No. 103465 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the second respondent herein to furnish authenticated sketch of the lands bearing sy.no.88/b, 88p/1 and 89 of Rayanala Village, measuring 31 acres 24 guntas, to the third respondent and further direct the third respondent to issue P.T. Sheet in respect of the said lands to the second respondent as per Annexure-M;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent herein to accord change of land use in respect of 31 acres 24 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 88/b, 88p/1 and 89 of Rayanala village, belonging to the petitioner, in terms of the petitioners application dated. 24.06.2023 as per Annexure-K;
c. Direct the respondent to pay cost of this writ petition and grant such other and further reliefs as are just.
2. The brief facts of the case are;
2.1. The petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, with the object of manufacture of electric motors, generators etc., and with that purpose, had -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 approached the State Government for allotment of certain land for establishment of its industry. 2.2. Pursuant thereto the State of Karnataka allotted 80.27 acres of land in Survey No.88 and 8.26 acres of land in Survey No.89 and phot kharab land of 0.10 guntas in Survey No.89 of Rayanala Village, under the agreement dated 05.03.1965. 2.3. The said land came to be converted from agricultural to industrial purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1965, by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.07.1965. 2.4. Subsequently on 01.10.1971, additional 10 acres of land in Survey No.88 of the very same village was allotted to the petitioner.
2.5. The petitioner thereafter established its industry and was carrying on the same for over nearly 50 years. However, due to various reasons, the said industry could not run, more particularly, on account of urbanization and residential development in the surrounding areas. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 2.6. Hence, taking into consideration that the land in and around that of the petitioner had been developed into a residential area, the petitioner being unable to establish any other industry in the said residential area, wanting to make use of the said land for residential purposes, had approached the 2nd respondent Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority ('HDUDA' for short), for sanction of change of land use on 28.10.2015, by exercising power under Section 14-A(ii) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the KTCP Act', for short).
2.7. The said request being rejected on 15.06.2016, the petitioner filed W.P.No.105734/2016 before this Court. This Court directed the HDUDA to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, which was earlier rejected. The said order came to be challenged by the HDUDA in W.A.No.100124/2018, which came to be dismissed. A Special Leave Petition having been filed by the HDUDA in SLP No.1951/2019, also dismissed on 01.03.2019. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 2.8. At this stage, the Deputy commissioner, Dharwad issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the land should not be forfeited on account of violation of the conditions of the agreement, which is challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.106705/2019, which came to be allowed by this Court on 30.07.2020.
2.9. This order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.106705/2019 is challenged in W.A.No.100157/2020. When the Division Bench remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for hearing the petitioner, fixing a time period of three months, the contempt proceedings filed by the petitioner in the meanwhile, was also closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. 2.10. The Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 08.02.2022, held that there is no violation of the grant order.
2.11. The petitioner filed another application seeking for change of land use by submitting an application on -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 24.06.2022, as regards another portion of the land measuring 31 acres 24 guntas in survey numbers 88 and 89 of the Rayanala Village.
2.12. This application was not processed by the respondents, calling upon the petitioner to produce the PT sheet and 11e sketch, in respect of the said property.
2.13. The petitioner on 31.12.2022 made an application to the Survey Department for furnishing the PT sheet, followed by the representation on 02.01.2023 and 22.02.2023.
2.14. Without issuing the said PT sheet on 04.03.2023, the petitioner received an allegedly back dated endorsement dated 15.02.2023 issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records stating that in respect of the said property PT sheet is not available and for issuing of PT sheet, an authenticated sketch is required to be issued by HDUDA. The petitioner once again wrote letter to the HDUDA on 07.03.2023 seeking for a sketch of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 the property which was not issued. On 08.03.2023, the petitioner received another letter of the 2nd respondent dated 27.02.2023 stating that since the documents requested for by HDUDA had not been furnished by the petitioner, the application filed for change of land use by the petitioner will be rejected. The petitioner once again wrote a letter to the HDUDA stating that he had produced all the relevant documents and it is only on account of HDUDA not providing relevant sketch that Assistant Director of Survey Records was not issuing a PT sheet and as such, by way of his letter dated 17.03.2023 requested the HDUDA to reconsider the application for change of land use. Nothing having been done in pursuance thereof, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for the above said reliefs by filing Writ Petition on 22.05.2023. 2.15. Unknown to the petitioner even prior to the filing of the writ petition on 27.04.2023, 2nd respondent passed an order that the application for change of land use has been refused. Hence, the amendment -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 was sought for. Thus, the submission made in regard to this order is that the said order was communicated only on 01.07.2023 post the filing of the above writ petition. The said fact will not hold this Court much longer.
3. The submission of Sri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel is that 3.1. Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post, the land having been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner having made use of the said land for 50 years to run an industry and thereafter, the land in and around the property of the petitioner being put to residential use and now incapable of being use for industrial purposes, the petitioner intended to use the land for residential purposes and as such, sought for change of land use.
3.2. Initially, the HDUDA had granted change of land use for certain lands, which has been sold to the petitioner in W.P.No.104352/2023. However, when another portion of the land measuring 31-Acres -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 24-Guntas was made, the respondents/authorities are making the petitioner to run from pillar to post when in fact it is the very same logic and reasoning which had applied to the earlier change of land use of the earlier land which would have applied to this change of land use to 31-Acres 24-Guntas. 3.3. His submission is that once the HDUDA had recommended and the State had sanctioned change of land use in respect of 20-Acres of the larger portion for the very same reasoning, the change of land use as regards 31-Acres 24-Guntas was required to be granted. Instead of doing so, the ADLR and HDUDA are blaming one another at the cost of the petitioner and it is the petitioner who is deprived of the use of his land.
3.4. He therefore submits that it is for the respondent to issue such document as is necessary for the purpose of processing of the change of land use application since the issue is between Governmental authorities namely ADLR and
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 HDUDA. The document being requested not being private document but being public document, it is for the public authorities to furnish such document which can be acted upon by the HDUDA. Instead of doing so, the non-issuance of a document by the ADLR has resulted in deprivation of the petitioner from making use of its land.
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General would submits that the PT sheet which had been prepared was to the larger extent of 88-Acres and there is no PT sheet prepared for 31-Acres 24-Guntas and it is that fact which the ADLR has communicated to the petitioner, it is not that there is no PT sheet which is available. If required by the petitioner, the PT sheet for the total extent of 88-Acres would be made available.
5. Sri Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/HDUDA would however submit that unless the PT sheet for the very extent for which the change of land use is sought for namely 31-Acres
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 24-Guntas, the HDUDA cannot process application for change of land use.
6. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.2/HDUDA.
7. It is rather a strange case where two authorities are not in a position to furnish the documents, which are apparently or allegedly required by HDUDA to process the application for change of land use filed by the petitioner. The HDUDA requesting for a PT sheet for 31-Acres 24-Guntas, the ADLR contends that no PT sheet is available for 31-Acres 24-Guntas, but the PT sheet for the entire land of 88-Acres could be made available. Even if this were furnished, the contention of leaned counsel appearing for HDUDA is that this larger PT sheet cannot be taken into consideration for change of land use.
8. The manner in which the above matter is proceeded with would only indicate that the respondent's officials have not even understood the reason and purpose of a PT
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 sheet. The PT sheet is issued only to record extent of land, survey numbers, CTS numbers, name of the owner of land and demarcation of boundaries.
9. In the present case on hand, it is not that a PT sheet of a smaller extent is proposed to be issued by the ADLR, the ADLR proposes to issue PT sheet for larger extent in which the 31-Acres 24-Guntas of the land of the petitioner is comprised of. If that be so, the survey number, extent, owners being reflected in the larger PT sheet only pending requirement for the HDUDA would be the demarcation of boundaries of this 31-Acres 24-Guntas. It was for the ADLR to consider the application of the petitioner and being fully aware that a PT sheet for 31-Acres 24-Guntas was not available to have provided a survey sketch for that extent of 31-Acres 24-Guntas demarcating the boundaries so as to enable the petitioner to make use of the said survey sketch to process the application for change of land use which the HDUDA would have been bound to consider and process. In that view of the matter, the two different authorities cannot in my considered opinion on account of one of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 authority not discharging its function, reject the application filed by the petitioner. General Suggestions/Directions
10. It is a matter of fact and record that when a citizen makes an application to any authority, most time, documents are required to be attached to the said application, some of them being private documents and many of them being those issued by other authorities. Even private documents are not completely private inasmuch as they are also available with and in the custody of public authorities, like registered sale deed, Khata certificate, tax paid receipts etc.,
11. As in the present case, the application for change of land use, required the petitioner to enclose a PT sheet and a survey sketch which are issued and maintained by the Department of Land Revenue. It is on account of one of the authorities not furnishing the documents which it was bound to do that an application filed by a citizen like the petitioner could not be considered.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023
12. Nowadays, most applications are required to be filed on-
line. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that there needs to be a proper system formulated that whenever any citizen makes an application on-line, the said on-line application should indicate what are the documents to be attached/enclosed with the said application and enable the applicant to access all public documents from different departments on-line by making such payment as may be necessary and attach those documents along with the application. Since documents would be directly sourced from the concerned department, the veracity and authenticity of the same could be easily verified and acted upon by the authority to whom the application is made. In the event such documents are not available, an endorsement could be issued on-line as regards such non-availability.
13. The system to be formulated in such a manner that the filing of application as also all other incidentals relating to the said application including securing documents, payment of amounts, correspondence etc., are available at a single location and the matter is not delayed due to
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 physical movement of files and or on account of inefficiency of the staff concerned. This would be very much essential feature for ease of business as also ease of living of the citizens of the country.
14. These being few suggestions, the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka is directed to constitute a committee to implement a system containing the above. Some of the members who could be included would be the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department, Principal Secretary of Urban Development, Principal Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Principal Secretary e-governance, Director of Land Records, one of the Commissioners of the Municipal Corporations, one of the Commissioners of the Urban Development Authority and the like at the discretion of the Chief Secretary. A detailed project report to be prepared and filed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Hence, I pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) Writ of certiorari is issued, the order dated 27.02.2023 bearing No.Hu.Dha.Na.Pra:Yo.Vi/Bhu.
Badalavane/1/2022-23/5028 vide Annexure-S issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.
iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to issue the PT sheet for the larger property as also carryout survey to the extent of 31-Acres 24-Guntas and issue a survey sketch to that extent indicating it to be part of the larger PT sheet and showing the location and boundaries of the 31-Acres 24- Guntas in the larger PT sheet for 88-Acres. The said process of carrying out survey and issuing survey sketch along with boundaries demarcated in the PT sheet to be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Once the said documents are issued to the petitioner and furnished to respondent No.2,
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2132 WP No. 103465 of 2023 respondent No.2 to process the application for change of land use since all other documents have been furnished by the petitioner and put up the same for approval of the 1st respondent within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
v) Though the matter is disposed, re-list on 24.04.2024 at 2.30 p.m. for reporting compliance with General Directions by the learned AGA.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab - upto para 2.13 AM - para 2.14 to end ct-mck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 139