Karnataka High Court
Sameer Siddique S/O Muneer Siddique vs The Deputy Commissioner on 31 May, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 103365 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 103365 OF 2023 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
SAMEER SIDDIQUE S/O MUNEER SIDDIQUE,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARIHAR ROAD, VIDYANAGAR,
HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE,
DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583131.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAKESH S VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT,
HARIHAR VIJAYANAGAR-583131.
... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by RAKESH (BY SRI. M H PATIL, AGA)
S HARIHAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.06.03 11:21:13
+0530 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. 28-06-2022
BEARING NO. NIL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 103365 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein claiming to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy.No.69/C/2 measuring 3.96 acres situated at Jambunathanahalli, Hosapete Taluk, Vijayanagar District has approached this Court in the instant writ petition with the prayer to quash the impugned endorsement order dated 28.06.2022 bearing No.Nil issued by the respondent vide Annexure-E and further to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to declare that the land bearing Sy.No.69/C/2 is deemed to have been converted for non-agricultural purpose.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. The application filed by the petitioner for conversion of the land in question from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose has been rejected by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide endorsement order dated 28.06.2022 vide Annexure-E based on the -3- WP No. 103365 of 2023 report said to have been submitted by the Hosapete Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA'). Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reasons have been assigned by the Deputy Commissioner to reject the application of the petitioner except stating that the application is rejected on the basis of the report of HUDA. He further submits that the land in question is situated within the limits of the City Municipal Council, Hosapete (for short, 'CMC') and therefore in view of Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964'), the petitioner is not required to obtain any separate order of conversion. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.102659/2021 disposed off on 26.08.2021.
5. Learned AGA has argued in support of the impugned order and has prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
-4-WP No. 103365 of 2023
6. The materials available on record would go to show that the land in question is situated within the limits of CMC and endorsement to the said effect has been issued by the Commissioner of CMC vide Annexure-B. The Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application of the petitioner without assigning any reason and in the impugned endorsement it is stated that, the application is rejected on the basis of the report submitted by HUDA. Since the land in question comes within the limits of CMC, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the proviso to Section 95(2) of the Act of 1964, the permission for conversion in respect of the land in question deem to have been granted. In almost identical circumstances, in W.P. No.102659/2021, this Court in paragraph 6 has observed as follows:
"6. Be that as it may, since the land now comes within the limits of the City Municipal Council, Hosapete, having regard to the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is very clear that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek a separate conversion order in respect of the -5- WP No. 103365 of 2023 land in question. Furthermore, proviso to Section 95(2) of the Act of 1964 also states that, in case of any agricultural land, which falls within the local planning area for which the master plan has been duly published, the permission for conversion in respect of the said land is deemed to have been granted, subject to payment of fine prescribed under Section 95(7) of the Act of 1964".
7. Under these circumstances, even in the present writ petition, it is to be held that the petitioner is not required to obtain a separate order of conversion from the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the land in question. Accordingly the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 28.06.2022 issued by the respondent is quashed.
The petitioner is declared to have deemed conversion in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.69/C/2 measuring 3.96 acres situated at Jambhunathanahalli, Hosapete Taluk, Vijayanagar District and it is made clear that the -6- WP No. 103365 of 2023 petitioner is not required to obtain separate conversion order. However, the petitioner is liable to pay fine as prescribed under Section 95(7) of the Act of 1964 to the competent authority and appropriate demand may be raised for payment of such fine which shall be complied by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38