ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent 2 and Sri M. H. Ibrahim, learned Government Pleader who had taken notice n behalf of respondents l and 3.

(2.) BY this petition, petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing letter Annexure-E dated 14-11-1997 and endorsement annexure-G dated 1-1-1998 bearing No. hu. da. na. pra. yovi. vinyas. 4: 97-98, 3512. He has also sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing 2nd respondent to release the layout land duly approved s per application dated 26-11-1997 vide Annexure-F. Petitioner has further sought for any such other order r direction r writ s in the circumstances of the case this Court deems fit and proper.

(3.) THE facts of the case s per allegations md in the writ petition are that, the petitioner claims that the property in dispute has bn ancestral property and it had bn purchased by the petitioner's father sri N. B. Kabbur in Court auction in execution case Dharkhest No. 152/52 n the fii of learned Civil Judge, Dharwad n 8-9-1958 for sl consideration of Rs. 6. 515/ -. Petitioner has further alleged that his father Sri N. B. Kabbur had got the land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural user and he got necessary orders from the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, in No. LND. SR. 2045, dated 25-2-1965. It may be mentioned that copy of this order has nt bn annexed with the petition, bt allegation is there. Petitioner's case is that his father got the layout pln of the land approved by the then Consulting Surveyor, Government of Bombay n 15-7-1952 and that said layout pln was revised by the respondents in the year 1970 and 1972. Petitioner's case is that the property in dispute measuring 100 feet (2168 sq. mts.) was left from the boundary of railway property to provide 60 feet link road from railway goods shed to University road. Petitioner's case is that petitioner filed declaration under the provisions of rban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the same had bn finalised by respondent 3 holding that petitioner is having an excess land of 10647 feet Le. , 2223 sq. mts. Petitioner has further alleged that he has taken exemption from the government under Section 20 of the rban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. Petitioner further alleged that he had moved an application before the Hubli-Dharwad Development Authority, challenging the setback area providing 60 feet link road and requested that it should be reduced to 40 feet from the railway track and nt from the railway property boundary. Petitioner's case is that vide resolution Annexure-B to the writ petition namely resolution 22, dated 31-10-1992, respondent l revised the layout pln and permitted the petitioner to mk use of the property in dispute for residential purposes i. e. , it changed the user of the land provided for 60 feet link road to be reduced to 40 feet link road and leaving remaining area for being used by the petitioner for residential purposes. Ptitioner's case is that a fresh declaration under Section 15 of the rban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act had bn filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent i. e. , the Deputy Commissioner and competent Authority vide Annexure-C to the writ petition, and that matter is still pending before the authority for final orders. Petitioner has alleged that he has produced 'no Objection Certificate' issued by the railway authorities for user of this disputed area for residential purposes. Ptitioner's case is that respondent 2 by letter dated 14-11-1997 informed respondent 3 i. e. , the Competent Authority that the said land is reserved for park, overlooking its resolution 22 dated 31-10-1992 permitting to mk use of the land for residential purposes. Ptitioner's case is that he requested the respondent 2 Le. , the Hubli-Dharwad rban Development Authority vide his letter dated 26-11-1997 Le. , Annexure-F to release the layout pln revised s per resolution 22, dated 31-10-1992 permitting the use of the land for residential purposes. In response to the letter Annexure-F of the petitioner, respondent 2 sent an endorsement to the petitioner asking the petitioner to produce the permission from the Government to change the land use froia railway margin to residential purpose. Petitioner felt aggrieved from the letters dated 14-11-1997 addressed by the Hubli-Dharwad rban Development authority-respondent 2 to the Competent Authority under the Ceiling act s well s having felt aggrieved from the endorsement issued by the hubli-Dharwad Development Authority to the petitioner dated 1-1-1998 and has come up before this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.