Karnataka High Court
Sri.Khaja Moinuddin S/O Ladle Sab vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.204675/2019 (KLR-CON)
Between:
Sri Khaja Moinuddin
S/o Ladle Sab
Aged about 85 years,
C/o Khaja Moinuddin & Sons,
Shop No. 175, Kirana Merchant,
New Vegetable Market,
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 conversion fees in
respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 48/1 measuring 06
acres 19 guntas, situated at Udnoor village, Tq. & Dist.
Kalaburagi and consequently issue a certificate of
conversion (b) Issue a writ or direction or order writ in the
2
nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider
the representation dated 10.09.2001 and 11.10.2019 vide
Annexure-H and R as under section 95(5) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in the interest of
justice and equity.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the top noted Writ petition seeking mandamus against the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to collect conversion fees in respect of petition land, by considering the representation dated 10.09.2001 and 11.10.2019 as per Annexure-H and R under section 95(5) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is absolute owner of petition land bearing Sy.No. 48/1 measuring 06 acres 19 guntas situated at Udnoor, Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi. The case of the petitioner is that petition land is barren land and is not cultivable and hence applied for conversion of said land for residential 3 purpose before the respondent. The application was submitted for conversion on 23.05.2000 along with all requisite documents. The said application was duly received by the respondent on the same day. The petitioner along with conversion application has furnished copy of report of Tahasildar dated 06.07.2000. He has submitted report endorsing No objections after spot inspection. The petitioner has also furnished copy of letter addressed by Commissioner of City Corporation, Kalaburagi who has stated in his letter that there are no acquisition proceedings pending in respect of petition land. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of the letter addressed by Assistant Commissioner, Kalaburagi, copy of letter issued by District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Kalaburagi wherein both the authorities have issued No objections for conversion of petition land into non-agriculture residential purpose.
4
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is total inaction on the part of respondent/Deputy Commissioner in passing orders on the application filed by the petitioner herein as per Annexure-A. Per contra the respondent/Deputy Commissioner has issued an endorsement dated 11.10.2001 which is beyond four months and the same was without any authority. Hence, the top noted Writ petition seeking direction against the petitioner to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to collect conversion fees along with prescribed penalty 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 23.05.2000. It is the case of the 5 petitioner that the authority has received the same on the same day i.e., 23.05.2000. 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 2000, no endorsement or order was issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner. The provisions of section 95(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act clearly indicates that:
"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 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 6 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 and once deeming claim is applied, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to reject the application is lost. In the light of the deeming provision contemplated under section 95(5) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the letter dated 11.10.2001 issued by Respondent/Deputy Commissioner is one without jurisdiction and it is inconsequential.
6. The petitioner by furnishing all the requisite documents has demonstrated that it is ancestral property and has furnished 'No objections' from all 7 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 four weeks 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