Allowed

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/106838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking deemed conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Petitioner applied over 120 days ago; Deputy Commissioner rejected the application citing pending master plan. Court relied on Section 95(5) KLR Act, quashed rejection, declared land deemed converted, and directed fees to be collected.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2018 quashed; Land deemed converted for non-agricultural use; Authorities directed to collect fees as applicable on expiry of 120 days.

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14732 WP No. 106838 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106838 OF 2019 (KLR-CON)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI ASHOK BHIMAPPA NAIK, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BALLUR R. C. VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587313.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU, PIN CODE-560001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587102.

¶14

Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMARB SHELAR MOHANKUMARB SHELARDate:
2023.12.20
16:16:16 +0530

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, MUDHOL, MUDHOL TALUKA, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587313.

¶16

THE MEMBER SECRETARY, TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE: 587313.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESP. NO.1 TO 3) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO. 4 SERVED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT IN RESPECT OF INTIMATION LETTER

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14732 WP No. 106838 of 2019

¶20

DATED 02.07.2018 IN NO.RB/LNA/SR-214/2017-18 AS PER ANNEXURE-L HEREIN AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT BY DIRECTING TO ISSUE CONVERSION ORDER OT THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE UNDER DEEMED PERMISSION AS PER SECTION 95(5) OF THE KLR ACT AND THEREBY COLLECTING NECESSARY CONVERSION CHARGES AS ON THE DATE OF DEEMED PERMISSION FROM THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND BEARING SY.NO.139/20 MEASURING ABOUT 2 ACRES 14 GUNTHAS SITUATED AT JUNJARAKOPPA VILLAGE OF MUDHOL TALUKA IN BAGALKOT DISTRICT, WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND THEREBY PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH THE SAID CONVERSION ORDER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

¶24

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶25

Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 02.07.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote. Petitioner has filed an application for conversion of his land bearing Sy.No.139/20 measuring 02 acres 14 guntas situated at Junjarakoppa village of Mudhol Taluka. The application was filed on 12.01.2018. The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote has rejected the said application by issuing the impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2018. The said endorsement reveals that the application is rejected on the

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14732 WP No. 106838 of 2019

¶27

ground that the master plan of Mudhol Town is under consideration. The endorsement is dated 02.07.2018.

¶28

In the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 94(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the KLR Act, 1964’), the land should be deemed to have been converted into a non-agricultural purpose. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 120 days have been elapsed from the date of filing of application. Thus, he would contend that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate declaration that the land is deemed to have been converted under Section 95(5) of the KLR Act, 1964.

¶29

Learned AGA would submit that the master plan of Mudhol Town is approved on 04.03.2023 and thus he would contend that the petitioner has to file one more application online. He would refer to the circular dated 20.02.2019. Learned AGA would also refer to another circular dated 18.02.2019 to contend that only online applications will be considered for conversion. The contention based on the circular has no application to the present set of facts, as the application for conversion is filed on 12.01.2018. The circular referred to

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14732 WP No. 106838 of 2019

¶31

above cannot be given retrospective effect and it is also relevant to note that by that time the circular was issued on 18.02.2019, 120 days had elapsed since the date of the application the land is deemed to have been converted into non agricultural purpose under Section 95(5) of the KLR Act, 1964.

¶32

Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following :

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondentDeputy Commissioner, Begalkote at Annexure-L is quashed.

¶36

(iii) The petitioner’s land for which conversion of land use is prayed interim application dated 12.01.2018 is deemed to have been converted for non agriculture use.

¶37

(iv) The respondent authorities are entitled to collect requisite fees for conversion as applicable as on the date of expiry of 120 days.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

CKK/ct-an

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik 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

Sri.Shankrappa Virupaxappa Dandin Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.Girish Nayak S/O Hanumanayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Nazukma W/O Khasimsab Multani Vs the Tahashildar

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vanaja D W/O Dr. Vinayka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sabanna Galeppa Pujeri Vs State of Karnataka