Karnataka High Court
Sharnamma W/O Somshekhar vs The Secretary To The Government Of ... on 16 August, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.204149/2017 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
SHARNAMMA W/O SOMSHEKHAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O SRINAVAS SARADGI
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 104
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF REVENUE BANGALORE - 06
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI - 585 104
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KALABURAGI - 585 104
4. THE TAHASILDAR
TAHSIL OFFICE KALABURAGI - 585 211
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN
NATURE OF A) AND WRIT OF "MANDAMUS" AGAINST RESPONDENTS 2
AND 4-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GULBARGA AND TAHSILDAR,
KALABURAGI RESPECTIVELY, TO RECEIVE THE CONVERSION FEE
PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING
SY.NO.672/3 MEASURING 3 ACRES 31 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
VILLAGE SRINIVAS SARADGI TALUKA & DISTRICT: KALABURAGI AS
PER ANNEXURE-J, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Syed Habeeb, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has sought for the writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 4 to receive the conversion fee payable in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.672/3, measuring 3 acres 31 guntas situated at Srinivas Saradagi Taluka, District Kalaburagi, placing 3 reliance on Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').
3. It is the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his application filed before the competent authority for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose was made as far back as on 31.8.2015, but so far no orders are passed by the competent Authority. Section 95(5) of the Act contemplates that, where the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-Section (2) within a period of our months from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for, shall be deemed to have been granted. Placing reliance on this provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to receive the conversion fees payable in respect of land in question for non-agricultural purposes. 4
4. It is the contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate that application dated 31.8.2015 filed by the petitioner was considered by the Deputy Commissioner-Respondent No.2 and an order was passed on 14.1.2016 rejecting the application pending appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., ADLR. The Appellate Authority-ADLR passed an order dated 1.4.2016. Subsequent to passing of the order by the Appellate Authority, no application is submitted by the petitioner for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose as provided under the aforesaid Act. The prayer now sought in the writ petition is misconceived.
5. In the light of the contentions now urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is manifestly clear that the application filed by the petitioner dated 31.8.2015 was rejected on 14.1.2016. Though ADLR- Appellate Authority has passed an order on 1.4.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point 5 out when fresh application was filed by the petitioner seeking for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose. However, the learned counsel relies upon the letter dated 19.12.2016, which explicitly do not disclose the same. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, it would be justifiable to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 20.7.2017 (Annexure-J) to the writ petition as the application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose and to take a decision in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 shall decide the matter based on the representation dated 20.7.2017, as expeditiously as possible, with an outer limit of two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL