Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.58 seconds)
Mohammed Hassan Fazal vs The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore ... on 16 June, 1998 cites

Channabasappa Nagappa Khot And Ors. vs State Of Mysore And Anr. on 18 July, 1966

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for by him in this petition. Admittedly, the first respondent has passed the order according permission for conversion of the land in question from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes by his order dated 10th of April, 1989. Before permission was accorded, the first respondent had sought for the opinion of the Bangalore Development Authority and after considering the opinion given by the Bangalore Development Authority, he had accorded permission for conversion of the land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. Under the Act, the first respondent is conferred with the power of according permission or refusing permission, sought for by an occupant of a land for conversion of the agricultural land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of K. Channabasappa, supra, has taken the view that mere proposal to acquire the land; and also merely because there is a notification issued for acquisition of the land, is not a ground to refuse permission sought for by a land owner for conversion of the agricultural land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. It is useful to refer to the observations made on Page-4 of the said decision, which read as hereunder:
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Divisional Commissioner vs H. Hiriyannaiah on 10 September, 1991

4. However, Sri Kotian, learned Additional Government Advocate, while strongly supporting the order Annexure-B passed by the second respondent, submitted that since the land in question is still required for the purpose of formation of service road to the outer ring road and other connected purposes, the second respondent was fully justified in passing the order impugned. He also strongly refuted the assertion made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order came to be passed on account of extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that under Section 56 of the Act, suo motu power is conferred on the second respondent and the second respondent, in the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, exercised the power conferred on him under Section 56 of the Act and passed the impugned order. The learned Government Advocate also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Divisional Commissioner v H. Hiriyannaiah, in support of his plea that the second respondent is conferred with suo motu power under Section 56 of the Act. He also submitted that since a declaration under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as "the BDA Act") has already been issued declaring that the land in question is required for public purpose, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1