Karnataka High Court
Gowramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO. 36270 OF 2015(KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
GOWRAMMA
W/O GOPALA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/A/NO.8, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
MATHRU NILAYA GARAKAMANTHANA PALYA,
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE-75
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
2
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD: 07.08.2014 ISSUED BY OFFICE
OF THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7.8.2014 made in No.A.L.N.(Jala)S.R.103/13-14 issued by 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-"E" and declare that the permission sought for by the petitioner to divert the land specified in application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as deemed to have been granted on expiry of four months as per Section 95 (5) of the Act and direct the 2nd respondent to collect the conversion fee and issue conversion certificate to the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being the owner of several survey numbers filed an application on 7.3.2014 along with documents 3 to 2nd respondent for sanction of conversion of lands mentioned in the application from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose. The Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application by the impugned order dated 7.8.2014 on the ground of not furnishing document regarding filing tenancy application. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondent-State has not filed any objections.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri.V. Vinod Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application for conversion mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not produced no tenancy certificate in respect of the property in question is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He 4 would contend that in the application, the column "documents submitted" clearly shows that he has produced all the documents including no tenancy certificate as per Annexure-"D". The same has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further contended that in the ground No.6 of the writ petition, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that all the documents including no tenancy certificate is produced along with the application and the second respondent did not consider and communicate his decision within the time prescribed. The said assertion made by the petitioner is not denied by the respondent by filing objections. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri. Harsha, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner contending that from the certificates as per Annexure-F1 to F5 dated 4.12.2013, whether the same is produced or not before the Deputy 5 Commissioner is not forthcoming. Therefore, he has sought to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of certain survey numbers situated at Meenukunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and filed an application dated 7.3.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner for sanction of conversion of lands mentioned in the application from agricultural to residential purpose. According to the petitioner, all the documents are produced, however, the same are not considered. The Deputy Commissioner in Annexure-"E" has stated that though the petitioner filed an application, he has not produced no tenancy certificate and as such the application has been rejected.
8. A careful perusal of Annexure-"D", it is seen that in the column "documents submitted" the petitioner produced several documents including no 6 tenancy certificate. Annexures-"F1 to F5" dated 4.12.2013, 31.12.2013 clearly depict that there is no application for tenancy in respect of the property in question. The said documents have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Even at para 6 of the grounds in the writ petition, the petitioner has taken the specific contention that "all requisite documents including no-tenancy certificate are produced along with the application. The respondent No.2 did not consider and communicate his decision within the prescribed time". The ground urged in the writ petition and the documents produced before the Court is not disputed by the respondent.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the matter requires re-consideration.
10. For the reasons stated above, the impugned endorsement dated 7.8.2014 in No.A.L.N.(Jala) 7 S.R.103/13-14 issued by the Office of respondent No.2 as per Annexure-"E" is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the application for conversion of land from agricultural purpose to residential purpose taking into consideration the documents Annexures-"F1 to F5", no tenancy certificate in respect of the property in question and also the grounds urged in the writ petition and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-