Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Mohammad Ismail And Anr vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 January, 2020

                             1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020

                          BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

      WRIT PETITION NO.201674/2016 (KLR-CON)
                        &
        WRIT PETITION NOS.202113-115/2016

Between:

1. Sri Mohammad Ismail,
   S/o Mohammad Ayub,
   Aged about 54 years,
   Occ. Agriculture,

2. Sri Mohammad Waheed Ali,
   S/o Mohammad Ismail,
   Aged about 28 years,
   Occ. Agriculture,

   Both are R/o Itiga Ahamadabad,
   Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi.

                                              ...Petitioners
(By Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)

AND

The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi,
District Kalaburagi - 585 101.
                                             ... Respondent

     These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or
                               2

direction or order writ in the nature of mandamus, directing
the respondent to collect the conversion fees in respect of the
land in question and consequently issue a certificate of
conversion.

      These petitions coming on for final disposal this day,
the Court made the following:-

                           ORDER

The top noted writ petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent to collect the conversion fees in respect of land in question and consequently issue certificate of conversion.

2. The facts leading to this case are as under ;- The petitioners are the owners of the petition lands. Since the petition lands fall within the vicinity of the city area, they decided to get the petition lands converted the agricultural land into non-agricultural residential purposes. Accordingly, the petitioners moved an application to the respondent on 13.03.2014. Along with the application, the petitioners furnished an endorsement and no objection certificate issued by all 3 the competent authorities. Though the application was submitted on 13.03.2014, there was total inaction on the part of the respondent in not passing appropriate orders under the provisions of Section 95 (3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964.

3. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent, the present petitioners have filed top noted writ petitions seeking mandamus to direct the respondent to collect conversion fees and consequently issue certificate of conversion. Since respondent/ Deputy Commissioner has failed to pass orders within the prescribed period of four months, in that view of the matter, as per Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964, there is deemed conversion order in favour of the petitioners.

4. The counsel for petitioners while marshalling her argument would submit to this Court that since Deputy Commissioner has failed to inform the applicant 4 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. She would further argue that it is well settled principle of law and Rule of interpretation that a deeming provision has to be given its full effect.

5. At this juncture the counsel for the petitioners would place the copy of the notice issued by respondent dated 24.12.2019 wherein the respondent/Deputy Commissioner has called upon the petitioners to deposit the prescribed conversion fees. Pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent/ Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners have deposited the conversion fees on 30.12.2019. The copy of the notice issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner and the receipt for having deposited the conversion fees is placed on record by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. These copies were served on the learned 5 Additional Government Advocate who does not dispute these documents.

6. In the light of the acceptance of the conversion fees, nothing would survive for consideration in the top noted writ petitions. However, writ petitions are allowed and the respondent/Deputy Commissioner having accepted the conversion fees is directed to issue conversion certificate within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE sn