What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed MUDA to consider the applications for change of land use, taking into account the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the applications.

Petitioners sought a direction to the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to consider their applications for change of land use. MUDA contended that permission for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, was a prerequisite.

What were the issues?

Whether MUDA can consider an application for change of land use without the applicant first obtaining permission for conversion of agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Sri Maheshwaran C S/O H R Chandra… vs The State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court 2012

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION Nos.21744-745/2012 (LB-RES) BETWEEN : 1. Sri. Maheshwaran C. S/o. H.R. Chandra Shekar Aged about 52 years R/a. No.79, Income Tax Layout Chamundi Hills Road Near Anjali Ashram Siddartha Nagar Mysore 2. Sri. M. Somesh Kumar S/o. B. Muddappa Aged about 57 years R/a. Mahanandi Farm Chamundi Hills Road J.C. Nagar Mysore 570 011 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. T.N. Vishwanatha, Adv.) AND : 1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Department of Housing and Urban Department

2 M.S. Building Bangalore 2. Mysore Urban Development Authority By its Commissioner Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai Road Mysore

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Vijayakumar A. Patil, HCGP for R-1 Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, Adv. for R-2) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representations at Annexures-F and G dated 3.1.2012, and etc. These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners contend that they have filed applications at Annexures-F and G both dated 3.1.2012 requesting the 2nd respondent for change of land use as provided under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Since the said applications have not been considered, they have filed

3 these writ petitions for a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the same. 3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent contends that having regard to the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act, the petitioners have to first obtain permission for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. I am of the view that the 2nd respondent has to consider the applications taking note of proviso to Section 14(2) of the Act. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the applications at Annexures-F and G both dated 3.1.2012 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order should not be understood as expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter one way or the other. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE. Cs/-

SRI MAHESHWARAN C S/O H R CHANDRA SHEKAR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments