Karnataka High Court
M/S Chamundi Associates vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2023
-1-
WP No. 26700 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.26700 OF 2016 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. CHAMUNDI ASSOCIATES
PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT NO.9, "ASHWINI",
8TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 080
REP. BY ITS PARTNER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally signed by 2. THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE,
MAHALAKSHMI B M OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
Location: HIGH MYSORE NORTH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE - 570 008. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA N., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 30/12/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO REGISTER
THE SALE DEED PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER WITHOUT
INSISTING FOR CONVERSION CERTIFICATE AS PER SECTION 95 OF
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 26700 of 2016
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking to set- aside the endorsement dated 30.12.2014 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A whereby, by impugned endorsement, the petitioner was called to produce land survey sketch and conversion certificate issued under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent-State.
3. The petitioner herein sought to purchase the land bearing Sy. No.4 P8 (Block No.13) at Kurubarahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore measuring to an extent of 5 acres and presented the sale deed for registration and as a pre- condition for accepting the document for registration, at the time of registration, an endorsement dated 30.12.2014 has been issued to the petitioner to produce the land survey sketch under Form 11E and conversion certificate.
4. It is not in dispute that the said property has been situated with the urban agglomeration as per -3- WP No. 26700 of 2016 Notification dated 12.12.1976 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner in LA/76-77 under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 and further the Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore vide notification dated 15.12.2009 has indicated that the land mentioned supra falls under the urban limits. Thereby, the question of Sub-Registrar asking the conversion order is not sustainable.
5. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M. Narayana and Others Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, by its Commissioner Office, Bangalore and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60 at paragraph No.5 held as under:
"5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that the suit property stands included within the Corporation limits in terms of a notification issued much earlier to the filing of the suit. As a result of such inclusion, the taxes applicable within the Corporation limits would by operation of law and in particular Section 4 Sub-section 4 of the Municipal Corporation Act become applicable to the extended area also. Even assuming that the land in question was agricultural land before its inclusion in the Corporation limits, the -4- WP No. 26700 of 2016 same would not necessarily mean that it either continued to pay land revenue nor would such land be exempted from payment of property tax under the said Act. As rightly pointed out by Mrs.Patil, Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, exempts the payment of property tax qua only such lands as are registered to be agricultural lands in revenue records of Government and as are actually used for cultivation of crops. Stated conversely just because certain land included in the Corporation limits is registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the said land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. On the contrary, Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the Corporation limits."
6. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M. Muninarayana Swamy and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, rep., by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 3428 has declared that there is no necessity for the petitioners to obtain conversion from agriculture to non- agriculture, if the area comes within the Town Municipal Council limits and in the background of Town Municipal -5- WP No. 26700 of 2016 Council collecting the developmental charges and treating as Municipal Property.
7. In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, the endorsement dated 30.12.2014 issued by respondent No.2 herein needs to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated 30.12.2014 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner without insisting upon the conversion order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM