BEERA HEGGADE Vs. DODDA BORAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by a person, who claims ownership of an extent of 3 acres 45 guntas of land in Sy.No.144 and an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.145 of Vijayapura Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District.

(2.) IT appears the petitioner intended to develop these two parcels of agricultural land to form a residential lay out and for such purpose had applied to the respondent ? Deputy commissioner in terms of his application dated 5.6.2004 praying for permission to convert the land for non-agricultural use in terms of the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

(3.) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of the respondent and learned HCGP has appeared and has opposed the writ petition. What is pointed out in opposition to the writ petition is the land in question being in close proximity to Vijayapura Village, which again is close by Gundlupet Town, the Government was in need of vacant lands for the purpose of distributing house sites to landless persons belonging to weaker section of the Society under the ?Ashraya Scheme? for construction of low cost residences to such people and therefore, the being needed for such purposes as there is no available vacant lands in the vicinity of the Vijayapura Village, the Deputy Commissioner found it not feasible for granting permission to the only available land for conversion in favour of the petitioner, who if develops this lands as house sites on his own and sells away the sites so formed by him to third persons the Government may not be in a position to get suitable lands to build houses for persons belonging to weaker section of the Society for distribution under the ?Ashraya Scheme? and therefore, the permission sought for has been rejected and justifiably so. The impugned endorsement is also sought to be defended on the ground that the petitioner had not placed sufficient and relevant material before the Deputy Commissioner to indicate his financial position or the capacity to develop the land in question for houses as residential purposes by laying out them in a proper manner, that in the absence of the material to indicate the petitioner?s ability to use the land for such purpose the issue of the impugned endorsement was justified etc. It is also urged that the petitioner had not voluntarily come forward to give the land for distribution to the landless persons under the ?Ashraya Scheme? and therefore the rejection is sought to be justified.