Allowed

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022WP/3634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, in a writ petition, allowed the petitioner's claim for deemed conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use under Section 95(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by quashing an order of rejection after the mandatory four-month disposal period had elapsed without any decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order d. 12.08.2021. Direction to treat the land as converted to non-agricultural user by virtue of the deeming provision under Section 95(6) of the 1964 Act.

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3634 OF 2022(KLR-CON)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A HOSAHALLI GRAMA, HUNASAMARANAHALLI HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 562 157.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPREESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.

¶13

… RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THERE IS DEEMED APPROVAL OF CONVERSION OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY BEING 34 GUNTA OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY BEARING AND PART OF

¶16

¶17

SY.NO.123/3 MEASURING 1 ACRE 12.08 GUNTAS IN HOSAHALLI VILLAGE OF JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK FROM AGRICUTLURAL PURPOSE TO NON-AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE U/S 95(5) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 12.08.2021 made by the 2^nd Respondent – Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-A under Section 95(5) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 rejecting his request for conversion of the agricultural land to non-agricultural user.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that

¶22

the law prescribes a period of four months, for disposing off applications of the kind, his client is entitled to benefit of deemed conversion in terms of Sub-Section 5 of Section 95 of the 1964 Act if no order is made within the said period. Therefore, impugned order needs to be voided and declaration for deeming needs to be accorded. He also notifies to the Court that the Planning

¶23

¶24

Authority has granted sanction vide order dated 16.08.2021 and that would also strengthen the case of his client.

¶25

learned AGA appearing for the official

¶26

Respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural user is a serious matter in a country which is predominantly dependant upon agriculture as the way of life; in order to seek benefit of deeming provision, the application has to be choate in all respects and only then such a benefit can be claimed and not otherwise. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties

¶28

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the deeming provision as enacted under Section 95(6) of the 1964 Act is as clear as Gangetic Waters. If no decision is taken within four months, the land stands automatically converted to non-agricultural user.

¶29

¶30

There is force in the submission of learned

¶31

counsel for the Petitioner that after the expiry of prescribed period of four months, the question of passing any order would not arise. There is a catena of decisions of this Court echoing this view. Therefore much deliberation is not warranted at the hands of this Court. Added, Petitioner has also secured the required sanction from the Planning Authority on 16.08.2021 which would also enure to the benefit of his client.

¶32

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds;

¶33

a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.A direction issues to the Second respondent to consider the subject land as having been converted to the nonagricultural user by virtue of deeming provision; it hardly needs to be stated that he petitioner is liable to pay conversion fine & other levies in respect of which the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate proceedings immediately. If conversion fee/levy is not paid by the

¶34

¶35

Petitioner within four weeks on demand, he shall not be entitled to take benefit of this judgment.

¶36

It is made clear that on the basis of deemed

¶37

conversion, the Petitioner may develop the property in question strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.

¶38

Costs made easy.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Bsv

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Special Deputy Commissioner

L. Nagaraju Vs the Tahsildar

Sri K R Rajesh Vs the Deputy Commisioner

Smt. Aswathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Govinda Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka