1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.15207 OF 2021 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

SRI M.BASAVARAJU

S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT ULLURUPETE, WARD NO.22

SIDLAGHATTA

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 105

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR K.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

M.S.BUILDING

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU-560 001

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 16.02.2021 (ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED

BY SECOND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSONER AND TO

2

DIRECT THE SECOND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

TO

CONSIDER

THE

PETITIONER9S

APPLICATION

DATED

24.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-B1) FOR CONVERSION OF LAND

BEARING

SY.NO.104/2,

MEASURING

0.23.08

GUNTAS

SITUATED AT BUDALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA

TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT IN THE LIGHT OF THE

ORDERS PASED BY THIS COURT VIDE ANNEXURES-G, H & J

RESEPCTIVELY.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of

certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 16.02.2021

issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the request of the

petitioner for conversion of land bearing Sy.No.104/2

situated at Budala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District (Annexure - C). The petitioner

has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to

direct the conversion of the aforesaid land for non-

agricultural purposes by reconsidering the application filed

by the petitioner.

3

2. The petitioner claimed that he is the owner of the

land bearing Sy.No.104/2 of Budala Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Sidlaghatta

Taluk,

Chikkaballapur

District

measuring

0.23.08 guntas. He sought conversion of the aforesaid land

for

non-agricultural

purpose.

Sidlaghatta

Palnning

Authority, whose opinion was necessary for respondent

No.2 to convert the land, indicated in terms of a

communication dated 09.12.2019 that the Master Plan for

Sidlaghatta planning area was pending approval before the

State Government and therefore, the conversion cannot be

granted.

3. Following such a communication, respondent

No.2 issued an endorsement dated 16.02.2021 rejecting

the application of the petitioner for conversion for non-

agricultural purposes.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as

on the date, when the application was filed for conversion

of land in question, it was reserved for any purpose and

therefore, the respondents cannot deny the conversion of

4

the said land on the ground that the master plan is yet to

be approved. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied

upon the following decisions:

1. Sri.S.B.Jagadish Babu vs. The State of

Karnataka and others [2018 SCC OnLine

Kar 1991]

2. Sri.Sethuraju M and others vs. The State

of Karnataka and another [2016 SCC

OnLine Kar 6862]

3. Sri.Munibyrappa and another vs. The State

of Karnataka and another [2018 SCC

OnLine Kar 1988]

4.

State of

Karnataka and another vs.

N.K.Agrawal

and

another

[1986

SCC

OnLine kar 42]

5.

Rajkumar vs. The State of Karnataka

[2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8036]

5. Having regard to the fact that the Master Plan is

not yet introduced in Sidlaghatta planning area, unless the

same is reserved for the purposes as set out in the

Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the

respondents cannot deny the benefit of conversion of land

for non-agricultural purposes. The rejection of the request

of the petitioner on the ground that the Master Plan for

5

Sidlaghatta Town is yet to be approved by the State

Government is unacceptable as such a ground is