Karnataka High Court
Sri.Siddanna vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 11 January, 2019
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
W.P.No.200077/2018 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.SIDDANNA S/O PAKEERAPPA PATTANASHATTAR
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O: SRI.SAIKRISHNA COMPLEX
OPP TO NEW BUS STAND
KUSHTAGI-583277
KOPPAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.P.KULAKARNI AND
SRI.NEELAKANTH.R.M. ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH)
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF CULTURE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
KSIMC BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.
2
3. THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER
MASKI TOWN, MASKI
LINGASUGUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584124.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR-584101.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
LINGASUGUR, LINGASUGUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT.
6. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR-584101.
7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
DHARAWAD CIRCLE
BEHIND SAHITYA BHAVAN
NEAR R.N.SHETTY STADIUM
DHARWAD-08
REPRESENTED BY
SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.M GHATE, AGA FOR R1, 4 TO 6
BY SRI.R.S.SIDDAPURKAR, ADV., FOR R2 AND 7
SMT.NEEVA.M.CHIMKOD, ADV., FOR R3)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ENDORSEMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-U BEARING
NO.TMCM/REV/102 DATED 08.09.2017 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO
APPROVE THE LAYOUT PLAN AND ALLOT THE SITE
NUMBER IN THE REGISTER (FORM NO.3) OF TOWN
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MASKI ON THE BASIS OF THE
REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER
HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-M DATED 27.06.2016,
ANNEXURE-P DATED 18.04.2017, ANEXURE-S DATED
17.06.2017, ANNEXURE-S1 DATED 30.06.2017,
ANNEXURE-S2 DATED 03.07.2017, ANNEXURE-S3
DATED 18.07.2017, ANNEXURE-S4 DATED
31.07.2017, ANNEXURE-T DATED 17.06.2017,
ANNEXURE-T1 DATED 17.06.2017, ANNEXURE-T2
DATED 30.06.2017, ANNEXURE-T3 DATED
18.07.2017, ANNEXURE-T4 DATED 31.07.2017,
ANNEXURE-V DATED 12.09.2017, ANNEXURE-V1
DATED 12.09.2017, ANNEXURE-V2 DATED 04.10.2017
AND ANNEXURE-V3 DATED 04.10.2017 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 11.01.2019 stating that, first prayer as sought for, may be disposed off as not pressed and confined that the present writ petition is only for prayer Nos.2 and 3.
2. In view of the above, the prayer No.1 is dismissed as not pressed.
3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 17.06.2017 for approval of layout plan and allot the site number in the Register (Form No.3) of Town Municipal Council, Maski.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.401/5 measuring 02 acres. Out of 02 acres, 07 guntas was converted into Non-Agricultural purpose in the name of 5 Sri.Siddalingappa s/o Maratappa Baligar who is the vendor of land in question. On 01.05.2008 No Due Certificate was granted to said Siddalingappa s/o Maratappa Baligar, for construction of residential house in Sy.No.401/5 (401/A) at Maski.
5. Out of said land measuring 02 acres 07 guntas, 02 acres converted land was purchased by the petitioner under the Registered Sale Deed on 05.02.2014 for valuable consideration. Therefore, concerned authorities have mutated the name of petitioner in M.R.No.H93/ 2013-14 on 14.03.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid conversion fee on 24.04.2014. Subsequently, on 24.04.2014 Gram Panchayat Maski, issued Form No.9 and it is bifurcated into 42 sites i.e., 5-8-7/1 to 58-8-7/42 (42 sites). Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application on 17.06.2016 before the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Maski for approval of layout plan after the 6 establishment of the Town Municipal Council, Maski (prior to that the Maski was a Gram Panchayat). On 10.04.2017 the Town Municipal Council, Maski issued endorsement directing the petitioner to obtain technical approval from the Department of Urban and Rural Planning Authority, Raichur. The representation made by the petitioner on 17.04.2017, the Department of Urban and Rural Planning Authority, Raichur given technical approval and layout map was also issued modifying the sites from 42 to 37 in view of the establishment of the Town Municipal Council, Maski.
6. Therefore, the petitioner made representation on 18.04.2017 to issue Form No.3 and to approve layout plan and to provide the site number to all the 37 sites, in view of the conversion of the said land by the concerned authorities. The petitioner made one more representation on 17.06.2017 to respondent No.3 for approval of layout plan. In spite of said representations made by the petitioner, the respondent 7 No.3 has not considered nor passed any orders till today. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 17.06.2017 for approval of layout plan and allot the site number in the Register (Form No.3) of Town Municipal Council, Maski.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to lis.
8. Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, it is not in dispute that, the petitioner is the owner of property in question and on the application made by his vendor, the concerned Deputy Commissioner has converted the land into None-Agricultural purpose. Subsequently, the conversion fee is also paid and property mutated in the name of the petitioner. Earlier Gram Panchayat, Maski, has bifurcated into 42 sites. In spite of the 8 representation made by the petitioner, the respondent No.3-The Town Municipal Council, Maski has not issued approval layout plan. Unnecessarily, dragged the petitioner before this Court. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition granting prayer as sought for.
9. Per contra, Smt.Neeva.M.Chimkod, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that, if such representation is made, the authority will consider and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, if already not passed, within a period of three months.
10. The said submission is placed on record.
11. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 4 to 6 and Sri.R.S.Siddapurkar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 7 submits that, whenever the representation made, it is for the competent authority to consider such representation and pass necessary orders within a period of reasonable time.
9
12. The said submission is placed on record.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that, the petitioner has purchased the property in question under the Registered Sale Deed on 05.02.2014 and his name was entered into M.R.No.H93/2013-14 on 14.03.2014. In pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner for conversion of land by his vendor, the petitioner has already paid the conversion fee on 24.04.2014 and Gram Panchayat, Maski has issued Form No.9 on 24.04.2014 and bifurcated into 42 sites. The petitioner has made an application before the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Maski for approval of layout plan on 17.06.2016. On 10.04.2017 the Town Municipal Council, Maski issued endorsement directing the petitioner to obtain technical approval from the Department of Urban and Rural Planning Authority, Raichur. The technical approval was given by the 10 Department of Urban and Rural Planning Authority Riachur on 17.04.2017 and layout map was also issued modifying the sites from 42 to 37 in view of establishment of the Town Municipal Council, Maski. In spite of representation made on 18.04.2017 and latest representation on 17.06.2017, the respondent No.3 has not considered the same nor passed any orders. For the reasons stated supra, the petitioner has made out legal as well as legal protected rights to issue writ of mandamus as prayed for.
14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.06.2017 as per Annexure-S for approval of layout plan and allot the site number in the Register (Form No.3) of Town Municipal Council, Maski, if not already disposed off, within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.
11
15. All the contentions of both the parties are left open to be urged at the appropriate relevant point of time.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ