Allowed

Smt Govindamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024WP/23074/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought conversion of agricultural land from PTCL-granted status to non-agricultural use; conversion was refused citing a State Circular and BDA's stated intent to acquire for a layout. The High Court quashed the Circular, BDA communication and endorsement, holding statutory conversion procedure cannot be supplemented by executive instructions or speculative acquisition intentions.

What did the court decide?

Circular dated 29.09.2021, BDA communication dated 22.05.2024 and DC's endorsement dated 06.07.2024 set aside; respondent No.2 directed to decide the conversion application.

Smt Govindamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.23074 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

1 . SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O. MUNIRAJAPPA D/O. LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT. NO. 75, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE PALANAHALLI, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064

¶7

2 . SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. MR. GOPAL @ GOVINDAPPA D/O. LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT. NO. 3/10, T.B. ROAD 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041

¶8

3 . SMT. RENU @ M. RENUKA D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 189, 2ND MAIN ROAD GANGANADHI ROAD BRUNDAVANA NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 050

¶9

4 . SRI. M. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA

¶10

¶11

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT 6, GURUMURTHY SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD HSR SECTOR, SOMASUNDARAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 102

¶12

5 . SRI. RAVI @ RAVISHANKAR .M S/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 6, GURUMURTHY SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD HSR SECTOR, SOMASUNDARAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 102

¶13

6 . SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI .M D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. NO. 18/62, ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD BANASHANAKARI III STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085

¶14

7 . SMT. PADMAVATHI D. D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 756, 7TH MIAN ROAD PIPELINE ROAD, NARMADHA NADHI ROAD NEAR SRINAGAR BUS STOP BENGALURU - 560 050

¶15

8 . SMT. M. CHANDRIKA @ CHANDRA D/O. LATE MUNIYAMMA @ SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT. 6/1, PIPELINE ROAD NEAR MADDURAMMA TEMPLE SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050

¶16

9 . SMT. SAROJAMMA D/O. VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN

¶17

¶18

SHIVMATADA ROAD A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA BENGALURU - 560 045

¶19

10 . SRI. K. RAMESH

¶20

S/O. SMT. VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA BENGALURU - 560 045

¶21

11 . SRI. CHANDHIRASEGAR. K S/O. LATE VENAKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA BENGALURU - 560 045

¶22

12 . SMT. HEMAVATHI

¶23

D/O. LATE VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT. NO. 173/1, 1ST MAIN SHIVMATADA ROAD, A.C. POST GOVINDAPURA BENGALURU - 560 045

¶24

PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 12 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (GPA) HOLDER

¶25

MR. G. SENDIL S/O. SRI. T. GOPAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. NO. 23/V, GAYATHRI APARTMENT 1ST MAIN ROAD, 25TH CROSS NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE MARUTHINAGAR

¶26

¶27

YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. SAMITH S., ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND GRANT) MS BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (BENGALURU URBAN) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDAYA BHAVANA

¶33

BANGALORE - 560 009

¶34

3 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-4, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020

¶35

4 . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST

¶36

BANGALORE - 560 020

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶39

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 29.09.2021 BEARING NO. RD 144 LGX 2021 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE - X AND ETC.

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶43

C.A.V. ORDER

¶44

The captioned petition is filed assailing the Circular issued by the respondent No.1 dated 29.09.2021 as per Annexure-X and consequently, writ of certiorari is sought to quash the impugned communication vide Annexure-U addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 and endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-W declining to grant conversion on the premise that BDA is contemplating to acquire the petition land and that the land admittedly being granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL

¶45

¶46

Act) cannot be subjected to conversion for non-agricultural purpose without prior permission from the Government.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶48

learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the BDA. Perused the records.

¶49

The subject matter of the captioned petition is

¶50

an agricultural land measuring 20 guntas out of 1 acre in Sy.No.49 (Old Sy.No.38/2). Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their application for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural on the basis of Circular dated 29.09.2021 issued by the respondent No.1. Petitioners applied for conversion of the schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural/residential purpose in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.8626/2024. Respondent No.3 issued a communication dated 22.05.2024 evidenced at Annexure-U

¶51

¶52

to respondent No.2 not to accord conversion and the authority intends to acquire the petition land for the purpose of Dr.K.Shivarama Karantha Layout. Subsequently, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner citing the Circular evidenced at Annexure-X, has issued the impugned endorsement dated 06.07.2024 declining conversion of schedule property from agricultural to nonagricultural/residential purpose.

¶53

Petitioners are questioning the validity of the Circular dated 29.09.2021 evidenced at Annexure-X and the consequent endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-W. The petitioners are also questioning the communication evidenced at Annexure-U issued by the respondent No.3 directing respondent No.2 not to grant conversion. To buttress their arguments, petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

¶54

¶55

Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries¹ .

¶56

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for the State, following points would arise for consideration:

¶57

1) Whether the Circular dated 29.09.2021 bearing No.RD 144 LGX 2021 issued by the respondent No.1/State as contained in Annexure-X is illegal and contrary to the scheme provided under Section 95 subclause (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act?

¶58

2) Whether the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner based on a communication issued by the respondent No.3/Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) as per Annexure-U could have issued the impugned endorsement dated 06.07.2024 as contained in Annexure-W?

¶59

Findings on Point No.1:

¶60

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act outlines the procedure by which an occupant of agricultural

¶61

1 (2008) 13 SCC 1

¶62

¶63

land can apply for its conversion to non-agricultural use. The key issue before this Court is whether the authority, while considering such an application, can refuse permission by imposing conditions or conducting inquiries beyond the restrictions specified in Section 95. The provision explicitly sets out the criteria for conversion, and it is a wellestablished legal principle that the authority cannot deny permission by exceeding the statutory limits. This specific question whether the Deputy Commissioner, while reviewing a conversion request, can conduct enquiry outside the scope of the restrictions imposed by Section 95 was addressed by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 60483/2016 while deciding a reference. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:

¶64

"(C) Section 4 of the Act begins with a nonobstante clause and curtails the right of a purchaser from a person belonging to schedule caste and schedule tribe community to purchase a land provides that such person has to obtain previous permission

¶65

¶66

from the State Government, failing which transfer of granted land shall be null and void. However, it is worth mentioning that the transfer or acquisition by transfer of "any granted land" without previous permission of the Government has been prohibited. There is no reference in Section 4 of the PTCL Act to Section 95(2) of the Act. It is well settled in law that when a statute provides a mode of doing a particular act in a particular way, then such a thing has to be performed in that manner alone and performance of that thing in all other manner is prohibited. [See: 'NAZIR AHMED VS KING EMPEROR AIR 1932 PC 238 (PRIVY COUNCIL), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH VS. PEARL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS PVT., (2004) 4 SCC 597, 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M GHASWALA', AIR 2001 SC 3868, 'COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BANGALORE JUTE FACTORY', 2005 (13) SCC 477, 'THE GOA FOUNDATION VS. SESA STERLITE LTD. AND ORS.', (2018) 4 SCC 218].

¶67

(D) In the instant case, the statute namely PTCL, specifically provides that the permission for transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any granted land cannot be made except after obtaining

¶68

¶69

prior approval of the Government. Thus, the transfer/ acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act i.e. the special enactment and an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the land to use the land for purposes other than agriculture, cannot be construed as fulfillment of requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also noteworthy that competent authorities under both the provisions viz., Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and under Section 95(2) of the Act are different, viz., the State Government and Deputy Commissioner respectively. The object and purpose of both the provisions contained in different enactment is entirely different. The scope of enquiry under both the provisions is entirely different. Both the aforesaid provisions operate in different fields. However, as we have already held that once the land is diverted, the same ceases to be a 'granted land' under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer remains 'granted land. Therefore, the issue

¶70

¶71

whether an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964 can be construed as prior permission by the Government satisfying the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in case of diverted lands. The aforesaid issue is therefore, answered accordingly."

¶72

7. Upon careful examination of the impugned

¶73

Circular, which has been brought before this Court for judicial scrutiny, it becomes evident that the additional restriction imposed requiring prior Government sanction for the conversion of land granted under the PTCL Act runs contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 95(2) clearly lays out the process for converting agricultural land to nonagricultural purposes. The Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 60483/2016 , unequivocally held that if a statute prescribes a particular mode for performing a specific act, that act must be executed in the manner set out in the

¶74

¶75

statute, and no additional steps or restrictions can be imposed that are not expressly provided for.

¶76

The Full Bench, while addressing the interplay

¶77

between Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, emphasized that the two provisions operate in distinct legal fields and pursue different objectives. The Court noted that Section 95(2) governs the procedure for converting agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, while Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act pertains to restrictions on the transfer of granted lands, which are lands allotted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the Government. Importantly, the Full Bench clarified that there is no reference to Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act within Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, signalling that the two statutes do not overlap in their application.

¶78

¶79

In the case at hand, the Circular in question introduced an additional requirement that holders of granted land must obtain prior Government sanction before applying for conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. This additional condition, as argued, is not found within the statutory framework of Section 95(2) and, as such, cannot be validly imposed. This Court, relying on a well-established legal principle articulated in Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor² was of the view that when a law prescribes a specific method for carrying out an act, any deviation from that method is impermissible. This principle was reinforced in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Pearl Mechanical Engineering and Foundry Works Pvt.³ and other subsequent cases, all asserting that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to without unauthorized additions or deviations.

¶80

2 AIR 1932 PC 238

¶81

3 AIR 2004 SC 2345

¶82

¶83

The Full Bench also addressed the broader issue of whether an order of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act could satisfy the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, specifically in relation to obtaining prior permission for transferring granted land. The Court concluded that once the land is converted under Section 95(2), it ceases to be "granted land" within the meaning of the PTCL Act. Thus, the requirement to obtain prior Government approval under Section 4(2) does not arise in the case of land that has been converted.

¶84

This judicial interpretation strongly supports the contention that the Circular, by imposing an additional condition that is not rooted in the statutory language of Section 95, is legally unsustainable. This Court has consistently held that administrative actions must conform strictly to the governing Statute, and any attempt to impose additional requirements outside of the Statute constitutes an overreach of authority. Therefore, the

¶85

¶86

Circular imposing the condition of prior sanction for conversion is found to be in direct conflict with Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶87

In light of these findings, this Court concludes that that impugned Circular is illegal, and must be set aside as it contradicts the express provisions of the Act. Accordingly, point No.1, which questioned whether the Circular could validly impose such additional restrictions, is answered in the affirmative, reinforcing the principle that statutory procedures cannot be supplemented by executive instructions that are inconsistent with the legislative framework.

¶88

Findings on Point No.2:

¶89

This issue is dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in a reported judgment in the case of Sri. Tayappa vs. The State of Karnataka, The Deputy

¶90

¶91

Commissioner, Bagalkot⁴ . This Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11, which reads as under:

¶92

"8. On perusal of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act No.1/1894) and Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (Central Act No.30 of 2013) (for short "the New Act'), we find that in Central Act No. 1/1894, there is no prohibition disentitling the land owner to put his land for better use by seeking conversion after publication of Section 4 (1) notification.

¶93

9. Sub-Section (4) of Section 11 of the New Act states that 'no person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed'. It is also useful to refer to the two provisos appended to sub-Section (4) of Section 11 which read as under:

¶94

4 ILR 2015 Kar 3041

¶95

¶96

"Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-section:

¶97

Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his willful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector."

¶98

10. Thus, it is clear that even under the New Act, there is no prohibition for the land owner to seek conversion of his land. What has been prohibited is entering into any transaction in respect of the land which is the subject matter of notification under Section 11 (1) or to create any encumbrances in respect of such land. In view of the above and keeping in mind, the language of the provisions contained under Section 4 of Central Act No.1 of 1894, Section 11 (4) of New Act and bearing in mind the judgment referred hereinabove, we are of the view that merely because the land has been notified by issuing a preliminary notification for acquisition, the Deputy Commissioner cannot reject the application filed by the appellant seeking conversion of the land for nonagricultural purpose. In fact, the said factor is not a relevant material to be taken into consideration for

¶99

¶100

deciding the application filed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking conversion.

¶101

11. The matter also does not fall under subSection (3) of Section 95 as urged by the Learned Government Advocate to enable the Deputy Commissioner to refuse permission on the ground that diversion of the land use was likely to defeat the provisions of law for the time being in force or is likely to cause public nuisance. No such ground is made out in the impugned order. Mere possibility of the land being acquired in future by issuing a final notification cannot deprive the land owner from seeking permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose."

¶102

Upon a detailed examination of the legal principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it becomes evident that the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) made a significant error in rejecting the petitioners’ application for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes, relying solely on a communication issued by the Bangalore Development

¶103

¶104

Authority (BDA) (respondent No.3). The communication from the BDA, as detailed in Annexure-U, indicated the BDA’s future intent to acquire the land in question. However, this cannot form the basis for refusing conversion under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Division Bench, in Sri. Tayappa vs. The State of

¶105

Karnataka, The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot (supra) , has clearly held that mere possibility of a future land acquisition, based on a prospective notification, cannot deprive a landowner of their right to seek permission for conversion.

¶106

The Division Bench referred to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the New Act), emphasizing that the new legislation does not impose any prohibition on landowners seeking conversion, even in cases where a preliminary notification for acquisition has been issued. The Court examined Section 11(4) of the New

¶107

¶108

Act, which only prevents transactions or encumbrances on land specified in a preliminary notification but does not prohibit an owner from applying for land conversion. In fact, even under the previous legislation, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, there was no such restriction. The Division Bench concluded that a mere notification expressing intent to acquire land cannot be used as grounds for refusing conversion under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶109

In the present case, it is important to note that no preliminary notification for acquisition under the New Act has even been issued. The records only reflect speculative intentions by the BDA to acquire the land at some point in the future. This speculation, without any formal notification or legal basis, is insufficient to justify the refusal of conversion. The Division Bench in Sri. Tayappa (supra) made it clear that such speculative intentions cannot interfere with a landowner’s right to put their land to

¶110

¶111

better use by seeking conversion for non-agricultural purposes.

¶112

The impugned communication from respondent No.3/BDA, which was relied upon by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, is thus without any legal standing. The Deputy Commissioner failed to properly exercise his statutory authority under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which governs the process for conversion. Instead, by placing undue reliance on the BDA’s speculative communication, he acted beyond his powers and contrary to the legal framework governing land conversion.

¶113

Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated 06.07.2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, rejecting the petitioners' conversion request, is clearly inconsistent with the law established by the Division Bench. The decision to decline the conversion lacks both factual and legal basis,

¶114

¶115

and as a result, it must be set aside. The Division Bench’s ruling underscores that the process of land conversion must strictly adhere to the provisions of the law and cannot be influenced by future possibilities of acquisition that are not yet formalized. Accordingly, point No.2 formulated above is answered in the Negative .

¶116

For the reasons stated supra, this Court

¶117

proceeds to pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶120

(ii) The impugned Circular issued by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-X, the communication issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-U and the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-W are hereby set aside and quashed;

¶121

(iii) Consequently, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on

¶122

¶123

the application submitted by the petitioner seeking conversion of the suit schedule property from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose;

¶124

(iv) Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for

¶125

consideration and stand disposed of.

¶126

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶127