IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.32287/2016 (LB-RES) Between:
M.T.Krishnappa S/o late Thimmaiah Aged about 73 years Punith Hotel Complex M.C.Road, Mandya City Mandya District. … Petitioner (By Sri M.Sivappa, Senior Advocate for Sri Anil Kumar.S., Advocate) And:
1. The Commissioner City Municipal Council Mandya Town Mandya District.
2. The Commissioner Mandya Urban Development Authority Mandya 571 401. … Respondents (By Sri G.M.Ananda, Advocate for R1 Sri T.P.Vivekananda, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and quash the impugned order by way of endorsement passed by the R1 dated 28.03.2016 under Annexure-P and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner, who is the owner of the property of an extent of 0.05 guntas adjacent to another property belonging to him bearing Municipal Khata No.D-2/1358/1070-22 situated at M.C.Road, Mandya City has filed the present writ seeking for an issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 28.03.2016 issued by the respondent No.1. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to effect khata, after consolidation with other property that belongs to him, and issue a single khata as regards both the properties.
2. The endorsement at Annexure-E dated 07.12.1996 refers to the violation of conditions of grant. Insofar as references are made to such of the conditions as found in the impugned order relating to condition Nos.1 to 5 at page No.96, the said conditions are legally untenable.
Insofar as the conditions imposed by the granting Authority, it is a matter between the Deputy Commissioner and petitioner and the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to initiate action as regards violation of conditions of grant, if any.
3. The only requirement in the endorsement that may be adhered to is as regards obtaining of Single Unit Approval in terms of Master Plan (Revision–1) Mandya 2021. Insofar as the said requirement is concerned, in light of prayer (b), the respondent No.2 is directed to take necessary action as regards the application and communicate such decision to the respondent No.1, to enable respondent No.1 to take steps for issuance of khata.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 states that a fresh application may be made seeking grant of Single Unit Approval in terms of Master Plan (Revision-1) Mandya 2021 as regards both the properties of the petitioner and after such representation is made as regards consolidation of both the properties and approval as a single unit, such consideration would be made expeditiously.
5. Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure-P dated 28.03.2016 is quashed except insofar as the requirement of approval of a single unit approval in terms of Master Plan (Revision-1) Mandya 2021, which is required to be made by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner as regards approval of single unit in terms of the Master Plan (Revision-1) Mandya 2021 upon representation being made within ten days from today. The respondent No.2 shall consider such representation within a period not later than four months and communicate the same to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 thereupon would take a decision as regards the effecting of khata within a period of six weeks thereafter.
6. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 that the property requires to be converted and separate order is to be produced, suffice it is to notice that grant of said land was for the purpose of running a hotel as is evident from the order at Annexure-A dated 25.03.1996. In fact, the order of grant also mandated that conversion charges be paid. The Tahsildar, in his official memorandum dated 30.03.1996 while allotting the land has also referred to the collection of conversion fee. In light of the fact that grant is for non-agricultural purpose, the conversion fee has been collected and therefore the question of insisting for Conversion Certificate to be produced would not arise. The said observation is to be taken note of by the respondent No.1 while deciding on further action relating to the effecting of khata.
7. Accordingly, the endorsement at Annexure ‘P’ dated 28.03.2016 is quashed in part in terms of the observations at para-6 made above and directions issued at para-5 are required to be proceeded with.
Subject to the above observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR