Allowed

Sri Sameer Siddique v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/103059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that land within Corporation limits is deemed converted per the master plan. Consequently, the petitioner was declared entitled to conversion without a separate order, though liable to pay requisite fees.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared to have obtained deemed conversion; directed to pay requisite fee/fine.

Sri Sameer Siddique Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103059 OF 2023 (KLR-CON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SAMEER SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O MUNEER SIDDIQUE, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BLOKC NO.56, HARIHAR ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HOSAPETE-583201, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.04 13:40:47 +0530

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSAPETE-583201.

¶15

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA)

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ACCEPT THE CONVERSION FEE IF ANY AND ISSUE THE CONVERSION ORDER IN TERMS OF SECTION 95 (2) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS BEARING SY. NO.71/1 MEASURING 2.81 ACRES SITUATED AT JAMBUNATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus, by considering his application seeking conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose.

¶22

Sri. G.I.Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court in plethora of cases has allowed such petition and has directed conversation in accordance with law by payment of requisite fees.

¶23

Sri. Madanmohan M. Khannur, learned AGA

¶24

though would seriously refute the submission to contend that the petitioner has made an application, but no endorsement is issued for him to approach this

¶25

Court.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶27

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in

¶28

W.P.No.104277/2021 has held as follows:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioner is the owner of land bearing

¶31

Sy.No.91/3 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas situated at Saptapur, Dharwad. In OS No.88/2008 filed by the vendor of the petitioner, the jurisdictional Civil Court declared that the vendors of the petitioner are the owners of the land in question. It is also stated that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court is the subject matter in RFA No.100506/2019, which is pending consideration before this Court. When things stood thus, an application submitted by the petitioner for converting the land in question for residential purpose was rejected by the respondent stating that the dispute is pending in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶34

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

would submit that the land in question falls within the Corporation limits of Hubli – Dharwad City Municipal Corporation and as such there is no requirement to obtain prior permission for converting the land in question for the purpose for which it is reserved in the master plan published by the Planning Authority concerned.

¶36

3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that in view of pendency of the Regular First Appeal in respect of the land in question, the respondent has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to divert the land in question for the residential purposes.

¶37

4. I have considered the submissions

¶38

of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶41

5. It is not in dispute that the land in question is situated within the Corporation limits of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.105734 of 2016 disposed of on 21.02.2018 has held that if the land falls within the Corporation limits, the provisions

¶42

of Karnataka Land Revenue Act ceases to apply to the said land. The order passed in the said writ petition was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100124 of 2018. In an appeal filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Urban Development Authority against the judgment passed in the said writ appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the order passed by this Court.

¶43

6. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, it is held that there is no requirement for the petitioner to seek permission to divert the land in question

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶45

for the residential purposes and the land is deemed to have been converted for the purposes for which it is reserved in the master plan published by the Planning Authority. Therefore, the requirement of

¶46

seeking permission to divert the land in question for the residential purposes is not necessary. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶47

The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in

¶48

W.P.No.102659/2021 has held as follows:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to declare that the land bearing Survey No.69 C1/A, measuring 1.90 Cents situated at Jambunathanahalli Village,

¶51

Tq.Hosapete, Dist.Vijayanagar, is deemed to have been converted for non-agricultural purpose, as provided

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶54

under Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1964’, for short).

¶55

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.69 C1/A measuring 1.90 Cents of Jambunathanahalli village, Tq: Hosapete, Dist.Vijayanagar, he having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2004. Subsequently on 08.01.2021, he has filed an application before the 2^nd respondent Deputy Commissioner, seeking conversion of the said land from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose. The said application has not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner till date and therefore, petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to declare

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶57

¶58

that, having regard to Section 95(5) of the Act of 1964, the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that there is a deemed conversion in respect of the land in question.

¶59

3. Learned counsel for the

¶60

petitioner submits that, the land in question comes within the limits of City Municipal Council, Hospete and therefore, there is no necessity for him to take a separate order of conversion

¶61

in respect of the land in question, as the land is deemed to have been converted for the purpose, for which it is reserved in the master plan published by the planning authority. He has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100124/2018, disposed of on 22.10.2018 and also on the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶63

¶64

W.P.No.148054/2020, disposed of on

¶65

05.03.2021.

¶66

4. Section 95(5) of the Act of 1964 reads as under:

¶67

“Section 95. Uses of agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricultural land for other purpose.--

¶68

1)xxxxxxxxxxx 2)xxxxxxxxxxx 3)xxxxxxxxxxx 4)xxxxxxxxxxx

¶69

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.”

¶70

5. A reading of Section 95(5) of

¶71

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,

¶72

makes it very clear that, if the application filed by the claimant seeking conversion of the land is not considered by the competent authority

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶74

10 -

¶75

within a period of four months, then there shall be deemed conversion of the said land.

¶76

6. Be that as it may, since the land now comes within the limits of the City Municipal Council, Hosapete, having regard to the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is very clear that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek a separate conversion order in respect of the land in question. Furthermore, proviso to Section 95(2) of the Act of 1964 also states that, in case of any agricultural land, which falls within the local planning area for which the master plan has been duly published, the permission for conversion in respect of the said land is deemed to have been granted, subject to payment

¶77

11 -

¶78

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶79

of fine prescribed under Section 95(7) of the Act of 1964.

¶80

7. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court in the identical cases referred above and also considering the above referred provision of law, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not required to seek permission to convert the land in question for residential purpose, as the land is deemed to have been converted for the said purpose. Hence, I pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

The petition is allowed.

¶83

The petitioner is declared to have obtained a deemed conversion in

¶84

respect of the land bearing Survey No.69 C1/A measuring 1.90 Cents

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 103059 of 2023

¶87

situated at Jambunathanahalli,

¶88

Tq.Hosapete, Dist.Vijayanagar and it is made clear that the petitioner is not

¶89

required to obtain a separate conversion order. However, the petitioner shall be liable to pay fine amount to the competent authority, as prescribed under law.

¶90

In the light of the judgments so rendered by the Co-ordinate benches, I decline to accept the submission of the learned AGA. However, I deem it appropriate that action to be taken strictly in consonance with law and permit conversion of the property, after receipt of requisite fee/fine from the hands of the petitioner.

¶91

Sd/JUDGE

¶92

vb ct:bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri Sameer Siddique v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sameer Siddique 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

Garikipaki Indraneela S/O Mastan Rao G Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh S/O Late Anjaneyalu Vs the State of Karnataka

Prof Basavaraj G Mirji Vs the State of Karnataka

Najer Mohammad S/O. Nabisab Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

D Suman S/O Subash Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Virupakshappa Harlapur Vs the State of Karnataka