Karnataka High Court
M. Puttaswamy vs The District Magistrate, Mysore on 3 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)KARLJ141, 1998 A I H C 4631, (1998) 2 KANT LJ 141
ORDER
1. By this petition, petitioner has sought the writ of certiorari quashing endorsement dated 20-11-1996 -- Annexure-A, issued by the District Magistrate, Mysore, requiring the petitioner to furnish what is bilaterally known in the cinema world, as the conversion certificate, but it may be said to be called as necessary permission to make use of agricultural land for the purposes other than the agricultural purpose or the purpose indicated in Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Act.
The petitioner has also prayed that the Annexure-A, may be declared to be unconstitutional, arbitrary and without authority.
2. According to the petitioner's case, Karnataka Cinema Regulations Act and the rules do not confer any power on the District Magistrate to reject the petitioner's application for grant of licence or renewal of licence, if user of land is not converted from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose- It has further been contended that the question of converting the land does not arise, as touring cinema is temporary in nature and character and so, the endorsement dated 20-11-1996, has been challenged as illegal, ultra vires of the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has also been contended that the Licensing Authority have misread circular dated 31-10-1996, issued by the Government learned Counsel contended that the perusal of the circular dated 31-10-1996, clearly shows that the State Government had issued direction to insist upon the production of conversion certificate for issue of touring cinema licence, it has further been contended that such certificate has not been insisted upon on other types of cinemas. It has also been contended that such circular is violative of Article 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(g).
3. The contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been hotly contested by the learned Government Advocate, Smt. Bharathi Nagesh.
4. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsels on both the sides. By endorsement dated 20-11-1996, the Licensing Authority has emphasised and required the petitioner to furnish the permission required under Section 92 of the Land Revenue Act which is popularly know as for user of the land from agricultural into non-agricultural purpose and he has informed the petitioner that licence cannot be renewed unless such a permission from the Deputy Commissioner or as per the expression used in the cinema world, 'conversion certificate', is furnished. The District Magistrate has not done anything, except emphasising, emphasising means, it should impress upon the requirements of law being complied with and this has been done with an object to save the situation which may arise out of conflict between Section 95(2) of the Land Revenue Act and the licence granted without furnishing of no objection certificate under Section 94.
5. In Writ Petition No. 4833 of 1997 and the connected writ petitions, decided on 2nd September, 1997, this Court had the occasion to consider the question of vires or the validity of Government circular dated 31-10-1996, whereby, it has been emphasised on the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrates over the Licensing Authorities that compliance with the requirements of Section 95 may be got made and the applicant may be required to furnish the necessary permission under Section 95(2} which is popularly described as the conversion certificate.
6. This Government circular has been held to have been issued under Section 14 of the Cinema Regulations Act, 1964, in conjunction with Section 6(b) of the Act. It has been held to be infra vires, even of the provisions of the Constitution, being rational restrictions and the circular being one which has been issued only to see that law is implemented which is contained in Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act with reference to agricultural lands. It has also been held that it is within the jurisdiction of the Government to issue such circulars to fill up the gap where there is no specific rule to meet out such situations.
7. In view of the decision in W.P. No. 4833 of 1997 and the connected writ petitions, decided on 2nd of September, 1997, by this Court and following that view in those cases, it is held that Government circular dated 31-10-1996, which is referred and in compliance of, the District Magistrate or Licensing Authority issued the endorsement dated 20-11-1996, is perfectly valid and when the circular dated 31-10-1996, is valid, the endorsement issued by the District Magistrate, Licensing Authority dated 20-11-1996, cannot be held to be illegal or ultra vires, of course, it appears to have been issued in compliance with the requirement of law, namely, Section 14 of the Act which says, every order or direction issued under Section 14, shall be given effect to by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, in my opinion, as such Deputy Commissioner has issued this endorsement dated 20-11-1996. This is nothing but part of reasonable restriction and neither circular dated 31-10-1996, nor the endorsement dated 20-11-1996, can be said to be illegal and ultra vires of Article 14, 19 or 21. Thus considered in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to the first relief (a), nor (b) nor any direction can be issued to the respondent to consider the renewal application without reference to the requirement of furnishing of permission under Section 95(1) of the Land Revenue Code, namely, requirement referred in Annexure-A, that is furnishing of the necessary certificate of conversion for user of the agricultural land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes.
8. This writ petition is being devoid of force and therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
9. Smt. Bharathi Nagesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file her appearance.