Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shantappa vs The Deputy Commissioner & Anr on 19 February, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.207570/2017 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
Sri Shantappa S/o Jagadevappa Patil,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Behind Toyota Showroom,
Badepur, Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Smt.Ratna N.Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi.
2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi, Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(By Sri K.M.Ghate, AGA)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ or
direction or order writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing
the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2017 in
No.Kandaya/Bhumi/Kruyo/Nagara/202/2015-16/10893,
issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P etc.
2
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The top noted writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2017 in No.PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/¨ÀsÆ«Ä/PÀÈAiÉÄ/£ÀUÀgÀ/202/2015-16/10893, issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P and also writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to issue certificate of conversion by collecting the conversion fees in respect of land in question.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition is as under :-
The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.172/1 measuring 04 acre 33 gunta situated at Nadnur (K) Village, Kalburgi District. The case of the petitioner is that land is uncultivable and since the same is situated within the vicinity of developed area. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner seeking 3 conversion of petition land to non-agricultural commercial purposes and filed an application for conversion on 11.01.2016. The said application was received by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner on 19.01.2016. The petitioner along with said application has also annexed no objection certificate issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation, Kalburgi, as per Annexure-B, no objection certificate issued by District Health and Family Welfare as per Annexure-C, no objection certificate issued by Assistant Director of Urban and Rural Development, Kalburgi as per Annexure-D, certificate issued on 26.12.2015 issued by Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kalburgi as per Annexure-E, No objection certificate issued by Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Kalburgi as per Annexure-F and No objection certificate issued by Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayat, Nandur (K), Kalburgi as per Annexure-G. 4
3. On receipt of application, respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahasildar, Kalburgi to conduct spot inspection and accordingly, Tahasildar, Kalburgi having carried out spot inspection has submitted his report along with requisite documents.
4. The petitioner submits that respondent No.1
- Deputy Commissioner on receipt of application and no objection certificates issued by competent authorities and after securing spot inspection report from the Tahasildar, Kalburgi was required to pass appropriate orders under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'). It appears there is total inaction on the part of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in not passing appropriate orders on the application submitted by petitioner herein. The respondent No.2 who is an Additional Deputy Commissioner without jurisdiction has issued the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2017 passed in 5 No.PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/¨ÀsÆ«Ä/PÀÈAiÉÄ/£ÀUÀgÀ/202/2015-16/10893 and in the said endorsement the respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to specify the nature of conversion of land for commercial purposes. This endorsement is issued after expiry of period of four months and same is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
6. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 95(3) of the Act, if the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the petitioner of a decision on an application made under Section 95(5) of the Act within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied seeking conversion shall be deemed to have been granted. By relying on these provisions and also the judgment of this Hon'ble Court, counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues and submit to this Court that, since 6 the Deputy Commissioner has failed to pass orders on the application, it shall be deemed that Deputy Commissioner has granted permission and once deeming provision is applied, the Deputy Commissioner is required to accept the conversion fees and penalty and thereafter has to proceed to issue conversion certificate.
7. The petitioner has also placed the judgment of this Hon'ble Court wherein in similar circumstances, this Court has held that once the Deputy Commissioner fails to act on the application within the period prescribed, the deeming clause would immediately come into play and the Deputy Commissioner has to accept the prescribed conversion fees and penalty and proceed to issue conversion certificate.
8. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent/Deputy Commissioner is directed to accept the conversion fees 7 and penalty in accordance with the law and thereafter issue conversion certificate within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE sn