Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Shujauddin And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
W.P.NOS.203352-356/2017
& 205851/2019 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN
1. MOHAMMED SHUJAUDDIN
S/O ZAMEERUDDIN AGE ABOUT 64 YRS
OCC: AGRICUALTURE
R/O TOWN HUMNABAD PRESENT RESIDING
AT HYDERABAD
2. MOHAMMED GAZIUDDIN
S/O MD. ZAMEERUDDIN AGE: ABOUT 62 YRS,
OCC: AGRICUALTURE, R/O TOWN HUMANBAD,
PRESENT RESINDING AT HYDERABAD.
3. MOHAMMED ARIFUDDIN
S/O MD. ZAMEERUDDIN AGE: ABOUT 60 YRS,
OCC: AGRICUALTURE, R/O TOWN HUMANBAD,
PRESENT RESINDING AT HYDERABAD.
4. MOHAMMED AHSAAN
S/O MD. ZAMEERUDDIN AGE: ABOUT 58 YRS,
OCC: AGRICUALTURE, R/O TOWN HUMANBAD,
PRESENT RESINDING AT HYDERABAD.
5. MOHAMMED IKRAMUDDIN
S/O MD. ZAMEERUDDIN AGE: ABOUT 56 YRS,
OCC: AGRICUALTURE, R/O TOWN HUMANBAD,
PRESENT RESINDING AT HYDERABAD.,
ALL THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
ABDUL RAHEEM S/O MOHAMMED ZAMEERUDDIN
AGE: ABOUT 45 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2
R/O TOWN HUMANBAD, TALUK HUMNABAD
DIST: BIDAR
6. ABDUL RAHEEM
S/O MD. ZAMEERUDDIN AGE: ABOUT 45 YRS,
OCC: AGRICUALTURE, R/O TOWN HUMANBAD,
TALUK HUMNABAD DIST: BIDAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S BUILDING VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.M.GHATE, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI / QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEUXRE-S DATED 14TH JUNE 2017 IN
FILE NO. REV/CON/CR-130/2016-2017 VIDE APPLICATION
NO.RDO990001599144 WITH COSTS IF ANY AS DEEMED
PROPER BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The top noted writ petitions are filed seeking quashing of impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexures-S and T rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking conversion of the petition lands and also writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to receive the conversion fees.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:
The petitioners are claiming to be owners and possessors of petition land bearing Sy.No.125/2 measuring 18 acres 20 guntas of village Humnabad Taluka Humnabad, District Bidar. The petitioners applied for conversion of the petition land before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. Along with said application, the petitioner produced the copy of letter issued by the Director of Town Planning Bengaluru as per Annexure-B and also correspondence 4 issued by the Town Municipal Council, Humnabad as per Annexure-C. The petitioners also relied on 'No objection' issued by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Authority, as per Annexure-D.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petition land is situated within the vicinity of developed area. There are several residential layout formed by the competent authority. Under such circumstances, they also sought for conversion of petition land and have submitted application seeking conversion. Respondent No.2 has failed to consider the application submitted by the petitioners within the prescribed period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the application. Petitioners insisted the authority to accept conversion fees. Respondent No.2 has rejected the application as per Annexures-S and T. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement and also on account of total inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not accepting conversion 5 fees and not issuing conversion certificate the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would not seriously dispute the 'No objection' certificate issued by the competent authority which are annexed along with writ petitions.
6. On perusal of the documents, it is clearly evident that respondent No.2 has issued the impugned endorsement as per Annexures-S and T rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners seeking conversion. This rejection is passed after lapse of 120 days. On perusal of the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it is clearly evident that respondent No.2 loses his right to determine the claim of the land 6 owners who are seeking conversion after expiry of 120 days.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexures-S and T are not at all sustainable and the orders are consequently hit by Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Sub-Section 5 of Section 95 reads as under:
(5) Where the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-section (2) within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted.
8. Therefore, except for the reason what is provided by these proviso, the conversion sought for shall be granted and it is for this reason, the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated sub-Section (5) of 7 Section 95 which mandates where the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-Section (2) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall deemed to have been granted. The proviso makes it very explicit that even if the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order rejecting the application within a period of four months provided by sub-Section (5), the deemed conversion will operate unless the said order has been communicated within the period of four months to the application. Therefore, the communication of the decision is important. However, in the present case on hand, the endorsement issued by the respondent - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexures - S and T are after expiry of four months and hence, the same are contrary to the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the same are liable to be quashed by this Court. 8
9. Under the following circumstances, the impugned endorsements passed by respondent No.2 dated 14.06.2017 in file No.Rev/Con/CR-130/2016-17 vide Annexure-S and dated 16.06.2017 No.Rev/Con/CR-130/2016-17 vide Annexure-T are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER The writ petitions are allowed.
The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.2 as per Annexure-S dated 14.06.2017 in No.Rev/Con/CR-130/2016-17 and Annexure-T dated 16.06.2017 in No.Rev/Con/CR- 130/2016-17 are hereby quashed and set aside.
A direction is issued to respondents to collect the fee in respect of petition land in question and consequently issue certificate of conversion in respect of petition land in question.9
The said exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu