Allowed

Mahammada Yusuf S/O Dadasaheba Dharmayatha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/105362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of a land conversion application decided beyond the thirty-day limit under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The court held the delay entitled the petitioner to deemed conversion, quashed the rejection order and directed issuance of a conversion certificate within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahammada Yusuf S/O Dadasaheba Dharmayatha Vs the Deputy… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13035 WP No. 105362 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 105362 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAHAMMADA YUSUF S/O DADASAHEBA DHARMAYATHA, AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶8

OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF KOPPAD TANK, DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580 001.

¶9

MAHAMMADA ILIYAS S/O NAJIRASABA PEERAWALE, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF SHEKHA COMPOUND, NEAR A I R, DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580 008.

¶10

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

ARSHADHUSEEN S/O MOHAMMADA YUSUF RAYADURGA, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF HATTUKHANA GALLI, BABAIMHAMA, DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR.B.HALLI., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580 004.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13035 WP No. 105362 of 2024

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580 001.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER, THE HUBBALLI-DHARWAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶20

4. TAIPURAAMMAHAD

¶21

S/O SHAMIMASABA HUDAKERI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF SOMAVARAPETH, KITTUR, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 115.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA.R.PATIL., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.Rajashekhar B.Halli., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil., HCGP for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person.

¶28

The brief facts are these:

¶29

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.58/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acres, 02 guntas situated at Kha-Ma-Narendra Village, Dharwad Taluk

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13035 WP No. 105362 of 2024

¶32

and District Dharwad. It is stated that the petitioner being the owner in possession and in cultivation of the land, made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, for conversion of his land on 25.01.2024.

¶33

The Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, after a lapse of time prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, on 30.07.2024, rejected the application. It is this rejection order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶34

Counsel Sri.Rajashekhar B.Halli., in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider the application within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. He argued by saying that in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has not taken any decision regarding the application within a period of thirty days.

¶35

By way of reply to this contention, HCGP justified the action of the Deputy Commissioner. She argued by saying that there is an alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. She vehemently contended that there is no bar for the Deputy Commissioner to reject the prayer beyond the time fixed under the relevant provisions of the Act. Accordingly, she

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13035 WP No. 105362 of 2024

¶38

submits that the petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶39

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶40

The issue revolves around the application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of the land. It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved an application for conversion on 25.01.2024. As per the Karnataka Land Revenue (Second Amendment) Act, 2022, Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is amended. As per the amendment, a duty casts on the Deputy Commissioner to give his decision and issue the order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. In the present case, the order is passed on 30.07.2024 i.e., beyond the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application.

¶41

It is pivotal to note that if the Deputy Commissioner fails to give his decision and issue the order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application, the approval for diversion for use shall deemed to have been granted by the Deputy Commissioner and the same shall be certified and issued in the matter as may be prescribed subject to payment of fee prescribed under sub-section (7). Therefore, the petitioner is

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13035 WP No. 105362 of 2024

¶43

held to be entitled to the benefit of deemed conversion in respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.58/2 measuring to an extent of 2 acres, 02 guntas situated at Kha-Ma-Narendra Village, Dharwad Taluk and District Dharwad.

¶44

For the reasons stated above, the rejection order is unsustainable in law. It is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶45

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The rejection order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, vide Annexure-K is quashed.

¶46

The Authority concerned is directed to effect conversion and issue conversion certificate in favour of the petitioner after receipt of necessary charges for such conversion, in accordance with the law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶47

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶48

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶49

MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4

Mahammada Yusuf S/O Dadasaheba Dharmayatha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahammada Yusuf S/O Dadasaheba Dharmayatha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrimanth Prabhu Madhumali Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Udaykumar S/O Manjappa Shet Vs the Assistant Registrar of

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shanmukha Shivappa Yandigeri Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes

M K Kalal ( Mahesh S/O Krishnaji Kalal) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangam Sahakari Sakkre, Vs State of Karnataka