IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.42782/2018 (KLR – CON) BETWEEN:
M.YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O J.MUNISWAMY #1335, OPP: CANARA BANK VARTHUR MAIN ROAD VARTHUR POST BENGALURU – 560 087.
(BY SRI.M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV.,) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURA POST BENGALURU – 560 087.
…PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED.09.02.2017 ANNEXURE – L ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the endorsement No.ALN (EVH)SR/258/2013-14 dated 09.02.2017 issued by the first respondent. Admittedly, the said endorsement is issued against the application filed seeking conversion of 7.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.30/1A, Varthur Village & Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, on the premise that the said extent of land is within the buffer zone of Varthur Lake. As such, the said application for conversion was rejected.
2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the first respondent the said extent of land is out of the buffer zone, as prescribed by the National Green Tribunal and revised by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MANTRI TECHNOZE PVT. LTD. DEVASA & CO. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS. in SLP (Civil) No.5016/2016.
In that view of the matter, it is stated that the application of the petitioner may have to be re-considered. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
3. Learned AGA who has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly concedes that in the light of aforesaid order, the authorities may have to re-consider petitioner’s application.
4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement dated 09.02.2017 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking conversion of the aforesaid land.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB