Allowed

Gurubasappa Pavadeppa Karki v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2021WP/16360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside an endorsement rejecting a deemed conversion application under Section 95(9) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Relying on a co-ordinate bench, the Court held that bank encumbrance is not a valid ground for rejection and directed the Deputy Commissioner to communicate payable conversion fines.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement was set aside. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to convey the conversion fine amount and grant deemed conversion upon payment.

Gurubasappa Pavadeppa Karki Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 16360 OF 2021(GM-MM-S)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GURUBASAPPA PAVADEPPA KARKI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S MALLIKARJUNA STONE CRUSHER R/O IREKOPPA, RAMDURGA TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI 591114

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.S.Y.SHIVALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT BELAGAVI 5900001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ONLINE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 AS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE. (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the impugned endorsement dated 31.12.2020 issued by

¶22

respondent No.2 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under sub-section(9) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶23

The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of land bearing No.330/3 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Itnal Village, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District and accordingly applied for grant of crusher licence. The Licensing Authority declared the land of the petitioner as safer zone by issuing

¶24

¶25

Form-B1. The licencing authority further granted Form No.C in favour of the petitioner permitting the petitioner to carry on crusher activities and the licence period was valid upto 31.3.2019. The petitioner applied for deemed conversion under Section 95(9) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The respondent No.2 has rejected the same on the premise that there is a charge of the bank over the petition land.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

¶27

It is stated across the Bar that the issue involved in

¶28

the present case on hand is no more res integra. The counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.5135/2020. The facts are almost identical and similar. In the said case also, the competent authority rejected the application on the premise that there is encumberance of bank loan on the land. The Co-Ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the judgment

¶29

¶30

rendered in W.P.5110/2020 has held that there is no question of rejecting the application under Sub-Section (9) of Section 95 of the Act.

¶31

In the light of dictum laid down by the Co-Ordinate Bench, we are of the view that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is not sustainable.

¶32

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i)The endorsement at Annexure-G is hereby set aside.

¶35

(ii)The Deputy Commissioner shall convey to the petitioners the amount of the conversion fine payable in accordance with Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 within two weeks from today. On payment of the conversion fine, a permission for conversion of the land, as contemplated under sub section (9) of Section 95 of the Act of 1964, in terms of the application made by the petitioners, shall be deemed to have been granted;

¶36

¶37

(iii). As clarified earlier, the use of land for agriculture cannot be changed unless there is a lease or a licence or a working permission, as the case may be, granted to the occupant of the land either for quarrying of minor minerals or stone crushing activity.

¶38

The petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶39

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

*alb/-.

Gurubasappa Pavadeppa Karki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurubasappa Pavadeppa Karki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North Kanara District Forest Land Rights Vs the State of Karnataka

Viswapriya Investors and Depositors Welfare Association Karnataka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K S Aravind Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Chytra Arun Kumar Vs the Commissioner

Sri C Patalappa Vs Joint Director of Mines and Geology

Sri. Prakash. C. M. Vs the State of Karnataka