IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NOs.6164-6170 OF 2017 (KLR - CON) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K.M. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE D RAMU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI. R. KRISHNA S/O LATE D. RAMU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. SMT. R. HEMA D/O LATE D. RAMU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SMT. PARIMALA D/O LATE D. RAMU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 5. SRI. R. UMESHA S/O LATE D. RAMU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS WIFE AND CHILDREN OF LATE SRI. D. RAMU 6. SMT. T. RENUKA W/O LATE D. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 7. MRS. T. PREETHI D/O LATE D. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 8. MRS. P. KIRAN S/O LATE D. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 9. SRI. P. SANTOSH S/O LATE D. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 10. SRI. P. SUNIL S/O LATE D. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS WIFE AND CHILDREN OF LATE SRI.D. PAPANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2768 1ST MAIN ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM MYSURU- 570 009 11. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 12. SMT. M.N. SHOBHA W/O D. SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 13. SRI. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 14. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR S/O LATE M.A. NARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1130/9 1ST CROSS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSURU – 570 009 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB – DIVISION MYSURU – 570 009 4. THE TAHASILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU – 570 009 5. THE MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSURU – 570 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER (IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2017) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1-4;
SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR SRI. P.S. MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENTS BOTH DATED 13.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – F & G AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners properties along with other properties were notified by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority for acquisition in terms of the preliminary notification dated 19.12.1991 and final notification dated 10.12.1992. On a challenge made in W.P.Nos.38868-870/2015 and W.P. Nos.38871-74/2015 the petitions were allowed and the acquisitions were quashed. Aggrieved by the said order the Mysuru Urban Development Authority filed W.A. No.899/2016. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioners approached the second respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru seeking permission for conversion of the schedule land from agricultural purposes to non agricultural purposes. By the impugned endorsement it was indicated that the approval could not be granted in the absence of a No Objection by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority as well as the concerned Tahshildar. Questioning such endorsement, the present petition is filed.
2. Learned Senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners’ counsel contends that the impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law. That this Court in its order dated 17.3.2016 passed in W.A. Nos.100403-100406/2015 has held that there is no requirement in law to produce any No Objection Certificate from any authority. That the Government Circular dated 17.10.2008 has no statutory force. Hence the plea of the petitioner be allowed by quashing the impugned endorsement.
3. The learned Government Advocate submits that what is sought for is only certain information and nothing else.
4. On hearing learned counsels I’ am of the considered view that in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench there is no requirement in law to produce any No Objection Certificate from any authority whatsoever. Even the Government Circular relied upon by the State therein was held as having no statutory force. Under these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, the impugned endorsement vide Annexure ‘F’ and ‘G’ dated 13.1.2017 are quashed. It is needless to state that the respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending IAs stand rejected.
SD/- JUDGE ykl