IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT APPEAL NO.4916 OF 2015 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 009 (BY MISS NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) AND MR.S.N.SINHA S/O LATE K.V.SURYANARAYANA IYER AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT NO.37, VIVIANI ROAD RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005 DULY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. DEEP SAHNEY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT No.37, VIVIANI ROAD RICHARDS TOWN BANGALORE-560 005 (BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.1636/2015 DATED 18/08/2015.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge allowing a writ petition against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru district, rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for conversion of the agricultural land measuring 20 guntas in Survey No.142/1B1 at K.R.Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
2. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, thought that it was improper on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in refusing to grant the request for conversion and, applying the test of sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it was held that the permission was deemed to have been granted.
3. The only contention of Miss Niloufer Akbar, learned additional government advocate appearing in support of the writ appeal, is that the applicant did not supply full particulars in support of the prayer for conversion.
4. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner is the owner of the property. The property is within the Bengaluru Urban District. Therefore, we do not think that the Hon’ble Single Judge acted illegally or without jurisdiction in allowing the writ petition.
5. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
6. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.III of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, dismissed.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv