Karnataka High Court
Smt Govindamma vs State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23074 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOVINDAMMA
W/O. MUNIRAJAPPA
D/O. LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 75, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
PALANAHALLI, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064
2. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O. MR. GOPAL @ GOVINDAPPA
D/O. LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 3/10, T.B. ROAD
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041
3. SMT. RENU @ M. RENUKA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO. 189, 2ND MAIN ROAD
GANGANADHI ROAD
BRUNDAVANA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 050
4. SRI. M. SRINIVAS,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
2
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT 6, GURUMURTHY SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
HSR SECTOR, SOMASUNDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 102
5. SRI. RAVI @ RAVISHANKAR .M
S/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 6, GURUMURTHY SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD
HSR SECTOR, SOMASUNDARAPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 102
6. SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI .M
D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 18/62, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD
BANASHANAKARI III STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085
7. SMT. PADMAVATHI D.
D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. 756, 7TH MIAN ROAD
PIPELINE ROAD, NARMADHA NADHI ROAD
NEAR SRINAGAR BUS STOP
BENGALURU - 560 050
8. SMT. M. CHANDRIKA @ CHANDRA
D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. 6/1, PIPELINE ROAD
NEAR MADDURAMMA TEMPLE
SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050
9. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O. VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN
3
SHIVMATADA ROAD
A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 045
10 . SRI. K. RAMESH
S/O. SMT. VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN
SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 045
11 . SRI. CHANDHIRASEGAR. K
S/O. LATE VENAKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN
SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 045
12 . SMT. HEMAVATHI
D/O. LATE VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN
SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 045
PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 12 REPRESENTED
BY THEIR GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY (GPA) HOLDER
MR. G. SENDIL
S/O. SRI. T. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT. NO. 23/V, GAYATHRI APARTMENT
1ST MAIN ROAD, 25TH CROSS
NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE
MARUTHINAGAR
4
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE - 560 064
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SAMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND GRANT)
MS BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
(BENGALURU URBAN)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER-4, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BANGALORE - 560 020
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
5
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
DATED 29.09.2021 BEARING NO. RD 144 LGX 2021 AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE - X AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V. ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the Circular
issued by the respondent No.1 dated 29.09.2021 as per
Annexure-X and consequently, writ of certiorari is sought to
quash the impugned communication vide Annexure-U
addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and
endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-W declining to grant conversion on the premise
that BDA is contemplating to acquire the petition land and
that the land admittedly being granted under the provisions
of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL
6
Act) cannot be subjected to conversion for non-agricultural
purpose without prior permission from the Government.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
learned counsel appearing for the BDA. Perused the
records.
3. The subject matter of the captioned petition is
an agricultural land measuring 20 guntas out of 1 acre in
Sy.No.49 (Old Sy.No.38/2). Petitioners are aggrieved by
the rejection of their application for conversion from
agricultural to non-agricultural on the basis of Circular
dated 29.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.1.
Petitioners applied for conversion of the schedule property
from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purpose in
terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in
W.P.No.8626/2024. Respondent No.3 issued a
communication dated 22.05.2024 evidenced at Annexure-U
7
to respondent No.2 not to accord conversion and the
authority intends to acquire the petition land for the
purpose of Dr.K.Shivarama Karantha Layout.
Subsequently, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner
citing the Circular evidenced at Annexure-X, has issued the
impugned endorsement dated 06.07.2024 declining
conversion of schedule property from agricultural to non-
agricultural/residential purpose.
4. Petitioners are questioning the validity of the
Circular dated 29.09.2021 evidenced at Annexure-X and the
consequent endorsement issued by the respondent No.2
vide Annexure-W. The petitioners are also questioning the
communication evidenced at Annexure-U issued by the
respondent No.3 directing respondent No.2 not to grant
conversion. To buttress their arguments, petitioners have
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
8
Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central
Excise, Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries1.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned AGA appearing for the State, following points
would arise for consideration:
1) Whether the Circular dated 29.09.2021 bearing
No.RD 144 LGX 2021 issued by the respondent
No.1/State as contained in Annexure-X is illegal and
contrary to the scheme provided under Section 95 sub-
clause (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act?
2) Whether the respondent No.2/Deputy
Commissioner based on a communication issued by the
respondent No.3/Bangalore Development Authority
(BDA) as per Annexure-U could have issued the
impugned endorsement dated 06.07.2024 as contained
in Annexure-W?
Findings on Point No.1:
6. Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
outlines the procedure by which an occupant of agricultural
1
(2008) 13 SCC 1
9
land can apply for its conversion to non-agricultural use.
The key issue before this Court is whether the authority,
while considering such an application, can refuse permission
by imposing conditions or conducting inquiries beyond the
restrictions specified in Section 95. The provision explicitly
sets out the criteria for conversion, and it is a well-
established legal principle that the authority cannot deny
permission by exceeding the statutory limits. This specific
question whether the Deputy Commissioner, while
reviewing a conversion request, can conduct enquiry
outside the scope of the restrictions imposed by Section 95
was addressed by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.
60483/2016 while deciding a reference. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as follows:
"(C) Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-
obstante clause and curtails the right of a purchaser
from a person belonging to schedule caste and
schedule tribe community to purchase a land provides
that such person has to obtain previous permission
10
from the State Government, failing which transfer of
granted land shall be null and void. However, it is
worth mentioning that the transfer or acquisition by
transfer of "any granted land" without previous
permission of the Government has been prohibited.
There is no reference in Section 4 of the PTCL Act to
Section 95(2) of the Act. It is well settled in law that
when a statute provides a mode of doing a particular
act in a particular way, then such a thing has to be
performed in that manner alone and performance of
that thing in all other manner is prohibited. [See:
'NAZIR AHMED VS KING EMPEROR AIR 1932 PC 238
(PRIVY COUNCIL), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CHANDIGARH VS. PEARL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
AND FOUNDRY WORKS PVT., (2004) 4 SCC 597,
'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS.
ANJUM M GHASWALA', AIR 2001 SC 3868,
'COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BANGALORE JUTE
FACTORY', 2005 (13) SCC 477, 'THE GOA
FOUNDATION VS. SESA STERLITE LTD. AND ORS.',
(2018) 4 SCC 218].
(D) In the instant case, the statute namely
PTCL, specifically provides that the permission for
transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any
granted land cannot be made except after obtaining
11
prior approval of the Government. Thus, the transfer/
acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made
in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the
Act i.e. the special enactment and an order of
conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under
Section 95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the
land to use the land for purposes other than
agriculture, cannot be construed as fulfillment of
requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is
also noteworthy that competent authorities under both
the provisions viz., Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and
under Section 95(2) of the Act are different, viz., the
State Government and Deputy Commissioner
respectively. The object and purpose of both the
provisions contained in different enactment is entirely
different. The scope of enquiry under both the
provisions is entirely different. Both the aforesaid
provisions operate in different fields. However, as we
have already held that once the land is diverted, the
same ceases to be a 'granted land' under the
provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a
diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the
permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not
arise as the permission has to be obtained only in
respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion
no longer remains 'granted land. Therefore, the issue
12
whether an order of conversion passed by the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue act, 1964 can be construed as prior
permission by the Government satisfying the
requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does
not arise in case of diverted lands. The aforesaid issue
is therefore, answered accordingly."
7. Upon careful examination of the impugned
Circular, which has been brought before this Court for
judicial scrutiny, it becomes evident that the additional
restriction imposed requiring prior Government sanction for
the conversion of land granted under the PTCL Act runs
contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 95(2) clearly
lays out the process for converting agricultural land to non-
agricultural purposes. The Full Bench of this Court
in W.P.No. 60483/2016, unequivocally held that if a statute
prescribes a particular mode for performing a specific act,
that act must be executed in the manner set out in the
13
statute, and no additional steps or restrictions can be
imposed that are not expressly provided for.
8. The Full Bench, while addressing the interplay
between Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
and Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, emphasized that the two
provisions operate in distinct legal fields and pursue
different objectives. The Court noted that Section 95(2)
governs the procedure for converting agricultural land for
non-agricultural purposes, while Section 4(2) of the PTCL
Act pertains to restrictions on the transfer of granted lands,
which are lands allotted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes by the Government. Importantly, the Full Bench
clarified that there is no reference to Section 4(2) of the
PTCL Act within Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, signalling that the two statutes do not overlap
in their application.
14
9. In the case at hand, the Circular in question
introduced an additional requirement that holders of
granted land must obtain prior Government sanction before
applying for conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act. This additional condition, as argued, is
not found within the statutory framework of Section 95(2)
and, as such, cannot be validly imposed. This Court, relying
on a well-established legal principle articulated in Nazir
Ahmed vs. King Emperor2 was of the view that when a
law prescribes a specific method for carrying out an act,
any deviation from that method is impermissible. This
principle was reinforced in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chandigarh vs. Pearl Mechanical Engineering and
Foundry Works Pvt.3 and other subsequent cases, all
asserting that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered
to without unauthorized additions or deviations.
2
AIR 1932 PC 238
3
AIR 2004 SC 2345
15
10. The Full Bench also addressed the broader issue
of whether an order of conversion under Section 95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act could satisfy the requirements
under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, specifically in relation
to obtaining prior permission for transferring granted land.
The Court concluded that once the land is converted under
Section 95(2), it ceases to be "granted land" within the
meaning of the PTCL Act. Thus, the requirement to obtain
prior Government approval under Section 4(2) does not
arise in the case of land that has been converted.
11. This judicial interpretation strongly supports the
contention that the Circular, by imposing an additional
condition that is not rooted in the statutory language of
Section 95, is legally unsustainable. This Court has
consistently held that administrative actions must conform
strictly to the governing Statute, and any attempt to
impose additional requirements outside of the Statute
constitutes an overreach of authority. Therefore, the
16
Circular imposing the condition of prior sanction for
conversion is found to be in direct conflict with Section
95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
12. In light of these findings, this Court concludes
that that impugned Circular is illegal, and must be set aside
as it contradicts the express provisions of the Act.
Accordingly, point No.1, which questioned whether the
Circular could validly impose such additional restrictions, is
answered in the affirmative, reinforcing the principle that
statutory procedures cannot be supplemented by executive
instructions that are inconsistent with the legislative
framework.
Findings on Point No.2:
13. This issue is dealt by the Division Bench of this
Court in a reported judgment in the case of Sri. Tayappa
vs. The State of Karnataka, The Deputy
17
Commissioner, Bagalkot4. This Court deems it fit to cull
out the relevant paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, which reads as
under:
"8. On perusal of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (Central Act No.1/1894) and Section 11 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, (Central Act No.30 of 2013) (for short "the New
Act'), we find that in Central Act No. 1/1894, there is
no prohibition disentitling the land owner to put his
land for better use by seeking conversion after
publication of Section 4 (1) notification.
9. Sub-Section (4) of Section 11 of the New Act
states that 'no person shall make any transaction or
cause any transaction of land specified in the
preliminary notification or create any encumbrances
on such land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under this
Chapter are completed'. It is also useful to refer to the
two provisos appended to sub-Section (4) of Section
11 which read as under:
4
ILR 2015 Kar 3041
18
"Provided that the Collector may, on the
application made by the owner of the land so
notified, exempt in special circumstances to be
recorded in writing, such owner from the operation
of this sub-section:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered
by any person due to his willful violation of this
provision shall not be made up by the Collector."
10. Thus, it is clear that even under the New Act,
there is no prohibition for the land owner to seek
conversion of his land. What has been prohibited is
entering into any transaction in respect of the land
which is the subject matter of notification under
Section 11 (1) or to create any encumbrances in
respect of such land. In view of the above and keeping
in mind, the language of the provisions contained
under Section 4 of Central Act No.1 of 1894, Section
11 (4) of New Act and bearing in mind the judgment
referred hereinabove, we are of the view that merely
because the land has been notified by issuing a
preliminary notification for acquisition, the Deputy
Commissioner cannot reject the application filed by
the appellant seeking conversion of the land for non-
agricultural purpose. In fact, the said factor is not a
relevant material to be taken into consideration for
19
deciding the application filed under Section 95 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking conversion.
11. The matter also does not fall under sub-
Section (3) of Section 95 as urged by the Learned
Government Advocate to enable the Deputy
Commissioner to refuse permission on the ground that
diversion of the land use was likely to defeat the
provisions of law for the time being in force or is likely
to cause public nuisance. No such ground is made out
in the impugned order. Mere possibility of the land
being acquired in future by issuing a final notification
cannot deprive the land owner from seeking
permission to convert the land for non-agricultural
purpose."
14. Upon a detailed examination of the legal
principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it
becomes evident that the Deputy Commissioner
(respondent No.2) made a significant error in rejecting the
petitioners' application for conversion of agricultural land to
non-agricultural purposes, relying solely on a
communication issued by the Bangalore Development
20
Authority (BDA) (respondent No.3). The communication
from the BDA, as detailed in Annexure-U, indicated the
BDA's future intent to acquire the land in question.
However, this cannot form the basis for refusing conversion
under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
The Division Bench, in Sri. Tayappa vs. The State of
Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot
(supra), has clearly held that mere possibility of a future
land acquisition, based on a prospective notification, cannot
deprive a landowner of their right to seek permission for
conversion.
15. The Division Bench referred to the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the New Act),
emphasizing that the new legislation does not impose any
prohibition on landowners seeking conversion, even in
cases where a preliminary notification for acquisition has
been issued. The Court examined Section 11(4) of the New
21
Act, which only prevents transactions or encumbrances on
land specified in a preliminary notification but does not
prohibit an owner from applying for land conversion. In
fact, even under the previous legislation, the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894, there was no such restriction. The
Division Bench concluded that a mere notification
expressing intent to acquire land cannot be used as
grounds for refusing conversion under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act.
16. In the present case, it is important to note that
no preliminary notification for acquisition under the New Act
has even been issued. The records only reflect speculative
intentions by the BDA to acquire the land at some point in
the future. This speculation, without any formal notification
or legal basis, is insufficient to justify the refusal of
conversion. The Division Bench in Sri. Tayappa
(supra) made it clear that such speculative intentions
cannot interfere with a landowner's right to put their land to
22
better use by seeking conversion for non-agricultural
purposes.
17. The impugned communication from respondent
No.3/BDA, which was relied upon by respondent
No.2/Deputy Commissioner, is thus without any legal
standing. The Deputy Commissioner failed to properly
exercise his statutory authority under Section 95(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which governs the process for
conversion. Instead, by placing undue reliance on the
BDA's speculative communication, he acted beyond his
powers and contrary to the legal framework governing land
conversion.
18. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated
06.07.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, rejecting
the petitioners' conversion request, is clearly inconsistent
with the law established by the Division Bench. The decision
to decline the conversion lacks both factual and legal basis,
23
and as a result, it must be set aside. The Division Bench's
ruling underscores that the process of land conversion must
strictly adhere to the provisions of the law and cannot be
influenced by future possibilities of acquisition that are not
yet formalized. Accordingly, point No.2 formulated above is
answered in the Negative.
19. For the reasons stated supra, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned Circular issued by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-X, the communication issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-U and the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-W are hereby set aside and quashed;
(iii) Consequently, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on 24 the application submitted by the petitioner seeking conversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose;
(iv) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA