K. Rajanna vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to collect the conversion fine and to issue a Conversion Certificate in respect of the petition schedule property. The petitioner in that regard is seeking that the impugned communication dated 23.07.2013 at Annexure-E issued by the second respondent be quashed.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property measuring 1 acre, 22 guntas in Sy. No. 131 of Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District. In that regard, the petitioner has sought conversion of the said property for residential use as provided under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The case of the petitioner is that the property which is presently in the urban agglomeration is indicated as a residential area in the master plan. The application as made by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent favourably but, the second respondent has issued the communication dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-E) seeking that the petitioner secure and produce the ''No Objection Certificate'' from the competent authority. There is no dispute between the parties that the competent authority referred to in the instant case is the Bangalore Development Authority.

The respondents have filed the objection statement. From the objection statement, it is clear that the contention therein is mainly that the property to which the petitioner presently claims that the conversion order be issued has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority and as such, the conversion of the said land cannot be permitted.

In order to substantiate the said aspect, the respondents were granted time to file appropriate documents before this Court. When the petition is taken up for consideration, a memo dated 18.11.2014 is filed by the learned Government Advocate enclosing thereto the communication addressed to the learned Government Advocate by the Deputy Commissioner and also the communication dated 03.11.2014 addressed by the Bangalore Development Authority to the Deputy Commissioner. The said communication would in fact be relevant for consideration as to whether in the present circumstance, the respondents could still seek for issue of ''No Objection Certificate'' from the Bangalore Development Authority in a circumstance where it is contended that the property in question was acquired for the benefit of that authority and not for any other reason.

In that light, a perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the claim being made by the petitioner is in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 131, measuring 1 acre, 22 guntas situate at Nagarabhavi Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District. The communication of the Bangalore Development Authority dated 03.11.2014 which has been presently filed along with the memo refers therein to a notification dated 05.08.1986 under which a claim is made that the property herein is a part of acquisition process under the said notification and specific reference is made to Sl. No. 1 which has been highlighted.

In that light, the position which requires consideration is as to whether the said communication should be taken as an objection indicated by the Bangalore Development Authority for considering the case of the petitioner seeking conversion. This Court at an earlier occasion in this petition in fact having noticed these aspects has sought for clarification from the respondents as to whether there was any other notification which had been issued subsequent to the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1582/1997. The judgment therein was rendered on 05.02.2005. The notification presently relied on as already indicated is of the year 1986.

If this aspect is kept in view and the judgment passed in O.S. No. 1582/1997 is perused, the issues therein had arisen for consideration in a suit where the State as also the Bangalore Development Authority were impleaded as defendants to the suit. The issue which arose for consideration therein is the very same acquisition notification dated 05.08.1986 relating to the same property and in that light, issue No. 3 therein and the additional issue framed on 27.09.2002 had arisen for consideration. The issues were to the effect as to whether the suit schedule property had stood vested in the Bangalore Development Authority by virtue of the acquisition and in the alternative as to whether the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit property. The suit schedule property indicated therein is the very same property to which the petitioner is presently seeking conversion. In the said suit, while answering the issue, the trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the property which is the subject matter therein was not a part of acquisition. Hence a declaration was granted that the plaintiff namely, the petitioner herein is the owner of the property. The judgment and decree rendered therein had been assailed by the Bangalore Development Authority in R.F.A. No. 1411/2008 which was dismissed on 16.02.2010 and the Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in C.C. No. 14272/2010 was dismissed on 20.09.2010.

In that light, when the judgment and decree had attained finality whereunder, the petitioner herein is declared to be the owner of the property in question more particularly, after considering the validity or otherwise of the acquisition and further, when no other document has been produced herein to indicate that notwithstanding the same a subsequent fresh notification has been issued acquiring the said property, the petitioner would continue to remain to be the owner of the property. In that light, even if the provision contained in Section 95(2) of the Act is kept in view, the proviso would indicate that if the property is situate in an area earmarked for a particular purpose in the master plan, the diversion as sought for the very same purpose cannot be refused.

Therefore, in the instant case, since the impugned communication dated 23.07.2013 at Annexure-E had been issued only on the ground that the ''No Objection Certificate'' from the Bangalore Development Authority had not been produced, the very nature of the documents examined herein and the memo filed would indicate that at this juncture, the Bangalore Development Authority cannot have any other objection other than the contention which had been raised that the property had been acquired. In that regard, when the acquisition notification was the subject matter of consideration in the suit and the rights of the parties had been determined, the only aspect which requires consideration by the respondents is the application seeking conversion and in the master plan if the property is indicated as residential zone, the application of the petitioner would have to be accepted by the second respondent and appropriate orders have to be passed granting conversion.

Therefore, the communication dated 23.07.2013 at Annexure-E is quashed. The second respondent is directed to process the application of the petitioner keeping in view the indication of the property for the purpose for which it has been indicated in the master plan by collecting the conversion fine and passing appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within six weeks from the date a copy of this order being furnished to the second respondent.

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.