Karnataka High Court
Pradeep Managoli vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO.23744/2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
PRADEEP MANAGOLI
S/O N B MANAGOLI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.103
70TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE THASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE - 562 106.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRANKUMAR T.L., AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.12.2012, ISSUED BY THE R2, VIDE
ANNEXURE-L TO THE WP & CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE AUCTION SALE
2
CONSIDERATION OF Rs.62,00,000/- [RUPEES SIXTY TWO
LAKHS ONLY] ALONG WITH STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION
CHARGES PAID IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND BY
CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.3.2013, &
18.5.2013 VIDE ANNEXURES-Q & R.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed endorsement dated 31/12/2012 issued by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, (Annexure-L) and has also sought a direction to the respondents to refund the auction sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/- along with stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the schedule land to the petitioner by considering his representations dated 23/03/2013 and 18/05/2013 (Annexures-Q & R).
2. The facts germane to the disposal of this writ petition are, that land bearing Sy.No.108, measuring 25 guntas of Nanjapura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, morefully described in he schedule to the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as 3 "the land in question") was notified for sale by auction by notification dated 25/05/2007. Petitioner participated in the auction sale. He was the highest bidder and his bid amount of Rs.62,00,000/- was confirmed and Sale Certificate dated 26/11/2008 was also issued in his favour. Official memorandum dated 06/11/2008 and 26/11/2008 and Sale Certificate dated 26/11/2008 are produced as Annexures-B, C and D respectively. In the auction notification, in the column pertaining to land use, it was mentioned as "interim Master Plan under approval, hence land use not mentioned". After the land in question was registered in the name of petitioner by virtue of the Sale Certificate dated 26/11/2008, the latter sought conversion of the land in question by making an application to the concerned authority by invoking sub-section (2) Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for commercial purpose for setting up petrol and diesel outlet. In processing the said application, the third respondent sought no objection from Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The BDA by its communication dated 30/06/2012 issued to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner stated that as per revised Master Plan, 4 which is approved by the Government on 25/06/2007, a small portion of the schedule land fell within the green belt and a majority of the schedule land fell within "secondary valley buffer zone" and that no development was permitted. On the basis of that opinion, the third respondent-Tahsildar issued the impugned endorsement dated 31/12/2012 (Annexure-L) to the petitioner. The second respondent is also stated to have rejected the application filed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Act seeking conversion of the land in question for non-agricultural purpose. Being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 31/12/2012 (Annexure-L), petitioner has filed this writ petition with an alternative prayer to refund the sale consideration as the petitioner is unable to get in conversion of the land in question and hence, seeks refund of the auction sale consideration.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents on several dates and perused the material on record. 5
4. From the impugned endorsement and also keeping in mind the fact that the second respondent has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 95 of the Act, it becomes clear that the land in question cannot be converted for non-agricultural purpose and also the change in the land user is not permissible having regard to the fact that a portion of the land falls within the 'green belt area' and another portion falls in 'secondary valley buffer zone'. Therefore, petitioner cannot divert the land in question for a non-agricultural purpose. In that view of the matter, the very purpose of purchasing the land at the auction sale has become frustrated.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner, during the course of his submission stated that petitioner does not intend to violate any provision of the law or the master plan as has been approved by the State Government and therefore, in the absence of any change in land user being permitted by the concerned authorities, he may be permitted to surrender the said land to the State Government in return for the sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/- he has paid along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly contended that petitioner would 6 not claim interest from 26/11/2008 i.e., the date when the sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner, but interest may be paid with effect from 21/05/2012 i.e, the date when the petitioner made an application to the third respondent-Tahsildar seeking change in land user.
6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate with reference to his statement of objections has, however, contended that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner purchased the land in question knowing fully well that the impugned master plan was under approval and now on the approval of the master plan in the year 2007, the petitioner ought not to have accepted the sale certificate in respect of the land in question in the year 2008. He also contended that the petitioner cannot also seek any refund of the sale consideration as the land is now registered in the name of the petitioner.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the respective parties, it is noted that while at the time of issuance of auction notification dated 25/05/2007, it was mentioned in the said notification that the interim master plan was under approval and therefore, the land use of the 7 land in question was not mentioned therein. The auction took place on 08/06/2007, which was prior to the approval of their master plan by the State Government, which was approved on 25/06/2007. Thereafter, the sale certificate in favour of petitioner was issued on 26/11/2008, on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/- If indeed the land in question was not to be utilised for non-agricultural purpose and in the interregnum, the State Government had approved the master plan, then sale certificate ought not to have been issued in favour of the petitioner and the sale consideration had to be returned in 2008 itself. The same having not been done and the petitioner not in a position to utilise the land in question for non-agricultural purpose, the purpose of purchasing the land in question has become frustrated. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the respondent authorities are right in stating that the land in question cannot be utilised for non-agricultural purpose and the at the same time, the sale consideration amount of Rs.62,00,000/- paid by the petitioner cannot be withheld.
8
8. In that view of the matter, respondents are directed to return the sale consideration to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 25/05/2007 till the date of realisation. As the sale certificate dated 26/11/2008 stands in favour of the petitioner and that sale certificate had to be made ineffective in law, the deed of relinquishment as is permissible in law has to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent- Deputy Commissioner or the competent authority thereby relinquishing all his right, title and interest in the land in question in favour of that authority. On the execution of such a document, the respondents to refund the sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%p.a. with effect from 21/05/2012 till the date of realisation. As the deed of relinquishment would now have to be registered before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, the respondents are directed to refund the said amount with interest at the time of registration of deed of relinquishment or extinguishment deed to be executed by the petitioner or through his power of attorney.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a draft of deed of extinguishment or 9 relinquishment shall be submitted to the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. He is permitted to submit the said document on 11/08/2014. On the said submission being made, the respondents shall verify the same and give their concurrence to the said draft or state any modification that would have to be made. In response to which, the petitioner shall carry out the modifications. Once the draft has been approved by the respective parties, the same shall be executed by the petitioner in favour of the second respondent or the competent authority within a reasonable time after intimation to the second respondent or the competent authority who would have to be present before the concerned Sub-Registrar Office at the time of registration of the said document. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the stamp duty and registration charges. If that is so, he is at liberty to seek the said refund in terms of the provisions of 10 Karnataka Stamp Duty Act, 1957 by making appropriate application before the concerned authority.
11. In the circumstances, the impugned endorsement dated 31/12/2012 would call for a limited interference. The endorsement is quashed to the extent of rejection of refund sought by the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in he aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE S*