Allowed

M/S Malleshwara Stone Crushers v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2021WP/17885/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench quashed Deputy Commissioner's endorsement keeping a deemed land conversion application in abeyance. Court held that once conversion fine is paid, conversion is automatic under KLR Act Section 95(9), irrespective of land grant or NOC documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; Applicant to pay conversion fine within three weeks; Deemed conversion to be granted upon payment.

M/S Malleshwara Stone Crushers Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 17885 OF 2021(GM-MM-S)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S MALLESHWARA STONE CRUSHERS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR-SMT SAVITHA, W/O LATE MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SY.NO. 81, RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBINAKERE POST, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 402.

¶11

....PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA,BENGALURU BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

2 . THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU BENGALURU 560 001

¶16

3 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

¶17

M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

¶19

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571 401.

¶20

5 . THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY MINERAL DIVISION, VIDYA NAGARA 1^ST CROSS, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571 401.

¶21

….RESPONDENTS

¶22

(SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO FORTHWITH ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDERS OF DEEMED NA CONVERSION, OVER AN AREA OF 02.02 ACRE IN PETITIONERS PRIVATE PATTA LAND AT SY.NO.81/P15 (OLD SY.NO.143) OF RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PETITIONERS LETTERS DATED 23.11.2018, 28.11.2018 AND LICENCE ISSUED IN FORM-C DATED 23.11.2018 PRODUCED AT ANENXURES-B,C AND G RESPECTIVELY BY QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT/REJECTION ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 BEARING NO.ALN(1) 66/2018-19 PASSED BY R4 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT ANENXUREA AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement No.ALN(1) 66/2018-19 dated 18.12.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent as per Annexure-A and consequently, issue a mandamus to the respondents to forthwith issue appropriate orders of deemed conversion.

¶29

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶30

The petitioner claims to be the owner of patta land bearing Survey No.81/P15 (old Survey No.143) situated at Ragimuddanahalli Village, Taluk and District Mandya. The petitioner with an intent to establish a stone crusher unit submitted an application for grant of licence. The Licencing Authority issued a certificate of compliance in Form B-1 by declaring it as a safer zone. The Licensing Authority pursuant to issuance of certificate of compliance granted licence for

¶31

¶32

establishment of stone crusher unit in the above said survey number and accordingly issued Form No-C.

¶33

The petitioner approached the 4^th respondent and submitted an application seeking deemed conversion of the land measuring 2.02 acres in Survey No.81/P15 under Section 95(9) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "KLR Act"). The 4^th respondent by the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A has kept the application in abeyance on the premise that the petitioner has not furnished documents pertaining to land grant and no objection certificate for nonviolation of provisions of PTCL Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

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

¶35

The controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.35133/2019 disposed of on 21.11.2019. This Court while examining the identical issue has held that

¶36

¶37

once an application is filed under Section 95(9) of the KLR Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner to whom the application is made is under an obligation to communicate the fine payable to such applicant in accordance with Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966(for short "KLR Rules, 1966") and once such fine is paid, the deeming fiction under Sub-Section 9 of Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964 immediately comes into operation. The ratio laid down by the Co-Ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

¶38

If the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A is examined in the light of the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that the impugned endorsement is not at all sustainable. The 4^th respondent while considering deemed conversion under Section 95(9) of the Act cannot insist for production of records pertaining to land grant and also cannot insist for production of 'No Objection Certificate' in

¶39

¶40

regard to violation of PTCL Act. Such a procedure is not at all contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the reasons assigned by the 4^th respondent while keeping the application submitted by the petitioner in abeyance under Section 95(9) of the KLR Act is palpably erroneous. Once an application is made under Section 95(9) and requisite conversion fine is paid the permission for diversion is automatic.

¶41

In the light of the discussions made supra, we are of the view that the impugned endorsement issued by 4^th respondent as per Annexure-A is not at all sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶42

Hence, we pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent as per Annexure-A is quashed.

¶45

(ii)The application dated 27.11.2018 submitted by the petitioner under Sub-Section

¶46

¶47

(9) of Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964, shall be decided by the 4^th respondent and the 4^th respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, shall communicate the amount of fine payable for conversion in accordance with Rule 107 of the KLR Rules, 1966 to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today;

¶48

(iii)As the application for conversion dated 27.11.2018 is already pending, on payment of fine as demanded by the Deputy Commissioner, a deemed conversion in respect of the schedule land as prayed for in application dated 27.11.2018 shall be deemed to have been granted to the petitioner under Sub-Section (9) of Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964;

¶49

(iv)The petition is allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

*alb/-.

M/S Malleshwara Stone Crushers v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Malleshwara Stone Crushers 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

Smt P Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

M S Ambresh Kencha Vs Election Commission of India

Sri Krishna Shetty Vs the Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Rewabe Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Shivalingaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Jagadeesha M S Vs the State of Karnataka