Allowed

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2023WP/104598/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging endorsements rejecting applications for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. The Court held the orders suffered from non-application of mind as they were passed on the same day applications were received without any recorded reasons, and quashed them, remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsements dated 14.09.2019 and 28.05.2020 are quashed and the matter remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders within three months.

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104598 OF 2023 (KLR-CON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. UMA ARAVATAGI W/O PRABHU ARAVATAGI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NO 6/A, SONTHA LINGANNA COLONY, NEAR ARCH, MOKA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BALLARI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583101.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.21 11:19:01 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU -530068.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. NIL BEARING NO. NIL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. NIL BEARING NO. NIL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C BOTH ENDORSEMENTS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO. 52/16 MEASURING 0.86 ACRES SITUATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶21

AT SHRIDHARGADDA VILLAGE, TQ. DIST. BALLARI BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶25

following prayer:

¶26

a. Quash the impugned endorsement dated. Nil bearing No.Nil produced as Annexure-B and also the impugned endorsement dated. Nil bearing No. Nil produced as Annexure-C both endorsements issued by the Respondent No.2 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.52/16 measuring 0.86 acres situated at Shridhargadda village, tq. Dist. Ballari by issue of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or directions.

¶27

b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to accept the conversion fee if any and issue the conversion order in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.52/16 measuring 0.86 acres situated at shridhargadda village, tq. and dist. Ballari.

¶28

c. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

Heard Sri. G.I. Gachhinamath, learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Prashant V. Mogali, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶32

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner claims to have purchased land bearing Sy.No.52/16 measuring 0.86 acres at Shridharagadda village, Ballari district. On coming in possession of the said land, an application is filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 14.09.2019 seeking conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes. On 14.09.2019, the application comes to be rejected on the same day. The second application is made by the petitioner on 28.05.2020 which also comes to be rejected on the same day. It is these endorsements that are questioned before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner is acting under section 95 of the Karnataka Revenue Act and it is the mandate of the statute that he has to apply his mind and then pass appropriate orders. The orders/endorsements would not reflect any application of mind. He would seek to quash the orders/endorsements and the proceedings to be remitted back to the hands of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader, on

¶37

the other hand, would seek to refute the submissions to contend that a report was sought and in terms of the report, the endorsements are issued and no fault can be found with the said orders.

¶38

I have given my anxious considerations to the

¶39

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record.

¶40

The afore quoted facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, after coming in possession of the land, applies for conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The application was filed on 14.9.2019 at 10:48am and by the evening of the said day, an endorsement is issued rejecting the application. The second application is made on 28.05.2020 and again by the evening of the said day, an endorsement is issued rejecting the application. Therefore, on the face of it, the orders/endorsements suffers from nonapplication of mind.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶42

The Deputy Commissioner is exercising his power

¶43

under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to grant or reject conversion which is dealing with the particular rights of the parties. If the Deputy Commissioner is acting under the statute determining the rights of the parties, it is trite that such determination should bear application of mind. The orders/endorsements impugned do not reflect even the semblance of application of mind. On this short ground that the orders/endorsements do not bear any application of mind, they are rendered unsustainable.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. The orders/endorsements dated 14.09.2019 and 28.05.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent stand quashed.

¶48

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of

¶49

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8605 WP No. 104598 of 2023

¶50

the order. Orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶51

order.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

P kmv Ct:Bck

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Uma Aravatagi W/O Prabhu Aravatagi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Nagaveni W/O Sanjeev Naik Vs Sooraj Finanace Limited

Shrikanth S/O Venkappa Mikali Vs the State of Karnataka

Amregouda S/O Doddanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Babu S/O Shankarappa Mukkannvar Vs the Union of India by Its Secretary

A Yallappa Vs the General Manager

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner