Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mohammad Jafar Ali vs The Deputy Commissioner on 21 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.204677/2019 (KLR-CON)
&
WRIT PETITION NO.205639/2019
Between:
Sri Mohammad Jafar Ali,
S/o Yakub Ali,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o H.No.6-64/A,
Muslim Chowk, Kalaburagi
... Petitioner
(By Smt.Ratna Shivayogimath, Advocate)
AND:
The Deputy Commissioner,
Kalaburagi,
Dist. Kalaburagi - 585 101.
... Respondent
(By Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, PGA)
These writ petitions are 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 mandamus, directing
the respondent to collect the conversion fees in respect of the
land bearing Sy.No.50/3 measuring 01 acre 32 guntas and
Sy.No.50/6 measuring 06 acres, situated at Udnoor village,
2
Tq. & Dist. Kalaburagi and consequently to issue a certificate
of conversion and etc.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The top noted writ petitions are filed seeking writ of mandamus against the respondent to collect the conversion fees in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.50/3 measuring 01 acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.50/6 measuring 06 acres.
2. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus to consider the representation dated 10.09.2001 and 11.10.2019 as per the provisions of Section 95 (5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
3. The facts leading to this case are as under ;- The petitioner is the owner of the lands bearing Sy.No.50/3 measuring 01 acre 32 guntas and Sy.No.50/6 measuring 06 acres situated at Udanoor Village, Tq. and Dist. Kalaburagi. The case of the 3 petitioner is that the said lands are barren lands and are not at all cultivable and hence the petitioner applied for conversion of the said lands into non-agricultural residential purposes.
4. The petitioner contends that the application seeking conversion was submitted to respondent on 22.05.2000 by annexing all the requisite documents. The petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that application was duly received by the respondent on 23.05.2000. The petitioner would submit that pursuant to the direction of respondent/Deputy Commissioner, the Tahasildar, Kalaburagi has visited the petitioner's land on 29.06.2000 and accordingly he has submitted a report dated 06.07.2000 as per Annexure-C. The Commissioner for Corporation of City of Kalaburagi has also submitted report dated 11.07.2000 as per Annexure-D. The Joint Director, District Industries Centre, Kalaburagi has given No Objection for converting the petitioner's lands from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes vide 4 his letter dated 18.07.2000 which is produced at Annexure-E. The District Health and Family Welfare Officer, Kalaburagi has also issued a NOC for conversion of the petitioner's land and the letter addressed to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner dated 03.08.2000 which is produced at Annexure-F to the writ petition. The petitioner is also relying on the letter dated 26.12.2000 issued by the Commissioner of Urban Development Authority, Kalaburagi as per Annexure-H.
5. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that inspite of all the reports being placed before the respondent/Deputy Commissioner, there is total inaction on the part of the respondent/Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner. This compelled to the petitioner to submit representation to the respondent/Deputy Commissioner on 10.09.2001 and 11.10.2019. Since there is total inaction on the part of 5 the respondent/Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Hon'ble Court.
6. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Section 95(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short '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 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.
6
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 petitions are allowed and the respondent/Deputy Commissioner is directed to accept the conversion fees and penalty in accordance with the law and thereafter issue conversion certificate within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE sn