Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Khandappa Jamadar vs The Secretary To The on 13 June, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NOS.202038/2017 (KLR CON)
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O KHANDAPPA JAMADAR
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: (PLOT NO.73 DATTA NAGAR JEWARGI
COLONY GULBARGA)
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF REVENUE BANGALORE-06.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI-585 104.
2
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI-585 104.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
CHITAPUR TALUKA
CHITAPUR-585 211.
......RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.V.NADAGOUDA, AAFG ALONG WITH
SRI.SHIPUTRA.S.UDBALKAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO.KAM / BHOOMI /
KYE / GRA / 142 / 2014-15 DATED 27/29-05-2015
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to quash the endorsement No.KAM / BHOOMI / KYE / GRA / 142 /2014-15 dated 27/29-05-2015 passed by respondent No.2, vide Annexure-J and writ of mandamus against respondents No.2 and 4-Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Tahasildar, Chitapur, respectively to receive the conversion fee payable in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.24/3, measuring 07 acres 33 guntas, situated at Madabol village, Chitapur Taluka, Kalaburagi District.
02. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.24/3, measuring 07 acres 33 guntas, situated at Madabol village, Chitapur Taluka, District Kalaburagi. He filed an application under Section 95 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on 27.01.2015 for 4 conversion of above said agriculture land for Non- Agriculture purpose along with relevant documents. On the basis of the said application, the Taluka Health Officer, Chitapur has submitted his report to respondent No.2 stating that the said land can be converted for Non-Agriculture purpose. The 4th respondent-Tahasildar has also given No Objection Certificate and also recommended for conversion of the said land. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner has also certified that there is no violation of Section 79 (A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and he further certified that the said land does not come under any of the Land Acquisition Proceedings.
03. It is further case of the petitioner that Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Madabol and Sub-Registrar, Chitapur have given No Objection Certificate for conversion of the above said land. The Deputy Commissioner without considering the 5 entire material on record has passed the impugned order dated 27/29-05-2015 by rejecting the appeal, mainly on the ground that the land is proposed to set- up National Investment and Manufacturing Zone (for short (NIMZ). Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
04. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
05. Sri.Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner stating that the land was proposed for NIMZ is without any basis. The Tahasildar, Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Registrar and Jurisdictional Authority have given No Objection Certificate for conversion of agriculture land into Non- Agriculture land, but the Deputy Commissioner without considering the documents produced by the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order. The same is 6 without any basis and liable to be quashed. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is contrary to the dictum of this Court in the case of Mohammed Faizuddin and others vs. the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka Department of Revenue Bangalore and others made in W.A.No.200561/2016 and connected cases, dated 01.02.2017. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
06. Per contra Sri.R.V.Nadagouda, learned AAG along with Shiputra.S.Udbalkar, learned HCGP appearing for the State Government fairly submits that though the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner clearly depicts that the land of the petitioner has been proposed to set-up NIMZ., the same cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.200561/2016 and connected case as stated supra. The said fair submission is placed on record.
7
07. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is owner of property in question. It is also undisputed fact that all the authorities under Karnataka Land Reforms Act as well as the Registration Act viz., Tahasildar, Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Registrar have submitted their report to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the land of the petitioner can be converted into Non-Agricultural purpose. The Deputy Commissioner without considering the reports submitted by jurisdictional authority has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the land is proposed to set-up for NIMZ purpose.
08. Admittedly, no notification has been produced before this Court by the State Government to show that the said land was acquired for the purpose of NIMZ.
8
09. This Court in the identical circumstances, in the case of the Mohammed Faizuddin, stated supra, has clearly held as under :-
(7). Keeping the above principles in mind, when facts on hand are examined, it would disclose that impugned endorsements 09.01.2015 and 19.01.2015 - Annexures-E and F has been issued rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of land from agricultural purposes to non agricultural residential purposes on the ground that said lands would fall within the zone of National Investment and Manufacturing Zone which reason is similar and identical to the one which was the subject matter in Writ Petition No.200764/2015 and impugned endorsement undoubtedly had been issued on 09.01.2015 i.e., beyond the period of four months from the date on which the deemed 9 provision would have come into effect. The reason for declining to grant the prayer of petitioner as could be seen from impugned endorsement is that the State is proposing the set-up National Investment and Manufacturing Zone and process has been initiated in that regard and Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries has given its in-principle approval for the said project. However, when the process relating to reserving the land for a particular purpose has not blossomed itself into decision having been taken or State having taken steps to acquire land for the said purpose as on the date writ petitioner submitted his application, right of petitioner to seek for conversion of land cannot be scuttled or it cannot be gainsaid by the State that petitioner does not have any such right 10 to such conversion of the lands. In fact petitioner has submitted his application in the instant case on 18.04.2014 with all relevant documents and No Objections Certificates obtained from the concerned departments and said right to claim deemed conversion accrued to the petitioner immediately after four months period was over and as such respondent by the impugned endorsement could not have rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that State Government is proposing to set up National Investment and Manufacturing Zone. In fact a right had accrued to the petitioner immediately after completion of four months i.e., 18.08.2014 in view of the deeming provision i.e., Section 95 (5). Hence, impugned endorsements cannot be sustained.11
10. In view of the admitted facts, as stated supra and the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner has filed an application on 27.01.2015 with all relevant documents. He obtained No Objection Certificates from the concerned departments and the said right to claim deemed conversion accrued to the petitioner immediately after four months period was over. As such 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that State Government is proposing to set up NIMZ. In fact, a right had accrued to the petitioner immediately after completion of four months from 27.01.2015, in view of the deeming provision i.e., Section 95 (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in No.KAM / BHOOMI / KYE / GRA / 142 / 2014-15 dated 27/29- 05-2015 is hereby quashed.
The 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court, as stated supra and accord permission to the petitioner, if there is no other impediment under any law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ