Karnataka High Court
Sri.Radheshyam S/O Madanlal vs The Deputy Commissioner on 27 February, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.200633/2016 (KLR-CON)
Between:
Sri Radheshyam
S/o Madanlal,
Aged about 66 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Nizampura,
Tq. & Dist: Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Smt Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)
And:
The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi,
Dist: Kalaburagi-585 101.
... Respondent
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to (a) issue a writ or
direction or order writ in the nature of mandamus,
directing the respondent to collect the fee in respect of the
land in question and consequently issue a certificate of
conversion, in the interest of justice and equity.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing-B
group, this day, the Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the top noted Writ petition seeking mandamus against the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to collect the fee in respect of the land in question and consequently issue a certificate of conversion.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is absolute owner of petition land bearing Sy.No. 15/1 measuring 10 guntas situated at Nizampur village, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi. The case of the petitioner is that petition land is located within the vicinity of developed area and as such petitioner was intending to get the petition land converted into non-agricultural residential purpose. The petitioner submitted an application to respondent/ Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of petition land on 28.07.2015 and enclosed certificates issued by the Tahasildar, Kalaburagi as per Annexure- C, certificate issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, 3 KIADB, Kalaburagi as per Annexure-E, certificate issued by District Health and Family Welfare officer, Kalaburagi as per Annexure-G. The petitioner has also furnished No objection issued by Commissioner, Mahanagar Palike, Kalaburagi as per Annexure-H and also no objection issued by Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi as per Annexure-J.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting opinion and recommendations from concerned departments, the respondent/Deputy Commissioner has failed to issue permission for conversion of above said land from agriculture to non agriculture purpose under section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act within prescribed four months from the date of application. Hence, the top noted Writ petition is filed seeking direction against the petitioner to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to collect conversion fees along with prescribed penalty 4 under Karnataka Land Revenue Code and Rules. The petitioner counsel while marshalling her argument has relied on judgment reported in W.P.Nos.5325-26/2014 and W.P.Nos.204517-519/2018 C/w other batch of Writ petitions.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved an application on 28.07.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority has received the same on the same day i.e., 28.07.2015. The petitioner counsel marshalling her arguments relied on judgment of this Court and contended that the application for conversion of land though filed in the year 2015, no endorsement or order was issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner. The provisions of section 95(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act clearly indicate as follows:
"If the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub section 2, within a period of four months from the date 5 of receipt of the application the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted."
5. In view of the said provision, it is deemed conversion order in favour of the petitioner as laid down by this Court. It is clear under sub section 2, section 95, that if the Deputy Commissioner fails to take decision on the application made under sub section 2 of section 95 of the Act within prescribed period (before four months from the date of receipt of application), the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. It is well established law that provisions have to be given its full effect. Since in the present case on hand, the respondent/Deputy Commissioner has failed to pass appropriate order on the application, it shall be deemed that the Deputy Commissioner has granted permission.
6. The petitioner by furnishing all the requisite documents has demonstrated that he is the owner of 6 property and has furnished 'No objections' from all competent authorities. In that view of the matter the respondent/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to to pass appropriate orders in favour of petitioner by collecting the prescribed fee and penalty and issue conversion certificate and the same has to be done in expeditious manner not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy from this Court.
7. Accordingly in the light of reasons stated supra, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.
SD/-
JUDGE *MK