Karnataka High Court
Margadarshan Education Trust vs The Deputy Commissioner on 3 September, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.107306/2014 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
MARGADARSHAN EDUCATION TRUST
ILKAL
TQ: HUNAGUND
DIST: BAGALKOT
BY ITS CHAIRMAN
V G KUDALAGIMATH
AGE: 42 YEARS
R/O. ILKAL, TQ: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT 587 125.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. M.M. KHANNUR, ADV. FOR
SIR. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADV. )
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT
DIST: BAGALKOT
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
:2:
BANGALORE 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. M. KESHAVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-D.
2. By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the first respondent has withdrawn the communication dated 28.3.2014.
3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
:3:
4. Briefly stated the facts are:
The petitioner is running Primary School, High School and P.U.Colleges. The petitioner has purchased 2 acres 20 guntas of land in R.S.No.2/C of Tonidhal village. The petitioner has applied for conversion to use the said land for non agricultural purpose. The 1st respondent has issued communication dated 28.3.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the conversion fee of Rs.3,13,482/-. The petitioner has paid the conversion fee as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, as per Annexure-D the first respondent has withdrawn the communication dated 28.3.2014 stating that the petitioner violated some Rules. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner was asked to pay the conversion fee as per Annexure-B and the petitioner has paid the conversion fee as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, :4: without any notice to the petitioner Annexure-D has been passed withdrawing Annexure-B which is not correct. The impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.
6. As against this, the learned AGA supported the impugned order.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is relevant to note, the petitioner has purchased he agricultural land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in R.S.No.2/C of Tonidhal village. The petitioner has applied for conversion. The first respondent has asked the petitioner to pay the conversion fee of Rs.3,13,482/-. The petitioner has paid the conversion fee as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner the first respondent has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D withdrawing the communication :5: dated 28.03.2014 stating that the petitioner has violated some rules. The impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-D is hereby quashed. The first respondent is directed to treat the impugned order as show cause notice. The petitioner shall submit his reply within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE DVR/Vnp*