Karnataka High Court
The Government Of Karnataka vs G Anuradha on 28 July, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.S Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2873 DAY OF JULY. 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJUNzx1'~H;_~ _
AND
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTIQE i-':AT'1;;--.: " 'V
WRIT APPEAL No.:3524'o1.é*V2009-771 f: D'
BETWEEN :
1. The Government of
Revenue Department,
M.S.Bui1dings,
Bangalore -- 56000}, H V _ _ _
Represented by =i A V
Principal S.eci*e'1a%y,';'. " " V'
2. The Special Dep;1.ty:_jC_ormjiiissioner,
Office of the TDept;1_;yV Co*rnfnissioner,
Bangalore ]3is_tricE:,'- '
Ba,.v1}ge11ore -- 56@.._Q01. V
. The Tahsjldétr,
_ Bang.al'oye »NTo1*.tif,. Taluk Office.
" .K;'o_
B-.;n'ga1Q;e'+1i.V_5£30 001. APPELLANTS
'(By Sri K.I\u/I:.Natara}, Add}. Adv. General for
,Sr:A1LSheei'a Krishna, AGA.]
T' *:'3m--tflG.Anu1~ac1ha,
_ TW/o Sri K.'£'.Govi'nde Gowda.
" 'Aged about 49 years.
Residing at No.34},
16"" Main. M.C.Layou1,,
{W
E\)
Vij ayanagar.
Bangalore W- 580 040. RESPONDENT
[By Sri K.T.Govindegowda, Adv.) This Writ. Appeal is filed under Section 4 of High Court Act praying to set aside the order p'asse:d=.in Writ petition No. L4623/O08 dated O2.02.2QQ9_ "
This Appeal coming on for Prel~irnir;i'a1:y' Hearing iii'r'rs__&day, MANJUNATH, J., delivered the fo]lowing:~1__ - ' = = V Juncrigrgr The legality and corr=<ifcti1esS*~€:i'_.t1<ie "or'de1"dated .G'9.02.2009 passed by the learned iri"Vl:'A.l§.i\lo.l4628/2008 is called in Zqiielsihfi, appeal.
2. The* Vrespo'ndenti_lb "c:liall~e11gi11g the Circular dated 16.09.1994 fij1'ec_i' the aforesaid writ petition. The State ""enye:3;ii'ne.1:i issued'ltVh'e"'Ci1'cular dated 16.09.1994 holding that. 'i'f__a";>;.4y9ij13l:i(:atioVf'l=_isifiled under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act~1,_:'oj- Conversion of ag1'iet1Ii'.t1ral land to non- ag1'iculturai1. purpose in respect. of unreserved Kharab land. the "Go*.I.erii':meni: is entitled to collect. the market. value in respect: of ..._%ur11feserved Kharaio also from the land owners. Learned Single , Judge after examining the correctness' of the said Ci1'C1.1l8.1' allowed the writ petition and quashed the Circular by issuing a 6/ direction to t.he appellants herein to consider the application filed by the writ petitioner for conversion of agricultural land to non~ag1'icLtltural purpose without. insisting the writ petiptioner to pay the market value of the Kharab land except conversion fine and other charges leviable u.nd.e.sf.t;l:ieV Kvar1i.atak"a., Land Revenue Rules for the purpose _ aggrieved by the same. the appepltants are_b'efo're 1.=.s?.. it 1
3. We have heard Sri y__l\lata'1'a;_i_._..learned Additional} Advocate General for the appellan.ts".~ it not that there are two types of Kharab nan1ely,"--r.eserve'd unreserved Kharab. With regzardlltlo' (not individual can claim any right as said _rese.rved for public purpose which is known as PotlKharabf[bl'=_andVPot Kharab (a) will run along with l l'aral)le__ l'a'n_d, and suc:h"l'and cannot be brought into cultivation on topography and in the event the land owner br'ing_jsl'the saj_t_d'let1id under cultivation, the Government. is 'entitled tocollect the revenue from the owners of such land. 4f , in the instant. case. by the impugned Circular, even in ..__l"i'eslpect of 'A' Kharal) land held by individuals. at the time of l"{:on\/ersion oi' the same from agricultural to non~agricultt:ral purpose. it is stated by the Governrnent that the owners have to 6/ pay the ma1'l{eti value of the Kharab land. The respondent- petitioner contends that she being the owner of 'A' Kharab land, she is not liable to pay the market Value on accoL1ntel..of..her seeking Conversion from agricultural to no1_i§agrie:,i:lt5'.tral purpose.
5. Sri Nataraj, learned Additional Advc-'ea.te Genera] that even in respect of Pot [a).>_theVGo"tfernrnent§ rnajgri» have a right over it and the 0w11er._d(_)i".uthe number (in respect of arable land) carrnoi elairng ownership, if such 'A' Kharab land __is hel.d...»._i)y Y_th.e '&GoV\fern'i1}eIi.t. In such circumstanCes,i'irti1e o?'«;,m::'1;=;1ent; can demand the owner of the agricultural land' .-'rnarket value considering the ownership of l.,h€'VCxOV€"IT3i'i}€IFll.'.. So far as this point is concerned 1 A. Ix " ..
'titre do. Gconcede that"""t'h'ere is some force in the arguments learned Additional Advocate General. if, in any giver':_oase._ fA"l3.Khe1r2tb land is not vested with the owner and if its own*~ers;hip is vested with the Government, in such 'ei'i"eurri'stances the Government. would be justified in demanding .__l"thegadjoining owner to pay the market, value of the land. But 'lithe question in this case is whether for the IA' Kharab land claimed by the respondent~writ petitioner she is the owner of ('Rx the land or it belongs to the Government. But, the Circular has been issued by the Government without making any classification. Therefore. Sri Nataraj, learned Afi.i"1'i.lLi'0I1E1l Advocate General fairly concedes that the Circ:i/1}_€¥=l'EA..'?l1'Su bad in law. in the eireunistanees, we earmot fi;*1'o'= fauli:"wi'ltl_1 tt_1e"
order passed by the learned Single Jtidge---in However, it is always open for the f;overrni_ne:1.t ir1'aiisy'vVgivenl case' I to establish that the ownership .Kl1a1'ab_:elain'ied by the farmer vests with the GOV't2l:l'.111€l1l,,{if i'.tl1_e_';G'oV_e1'nment is having any record to that effect. Orilyiri (';ases~;.'it--h'e Government is entitled to claim value pi'oyid.evq\\*«';;'u~eii land belongs to the GOV€Ifi'1iIf€l1{'-a11ClV'V'fiG't"'Qtl'1§i'WiS€'. Grantirig liberty to the Gove1*ninent'fl_to ve>V{a'rnineV tlie said position whenever an __applica_§_tionzis 'filed conversion, this writ appeal is disposed Sd/-' HEDGE sa/é Jesse W3 3:
U3