Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.