Allowed

Sri D Shivalingegowda @ D S Gowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024WP/23687/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the Deputy Commissioner's rejection of a land conversion application requiring a BDA NOC. Relying on an identical earlier judgment and the Full Bench ruling that no restriction outside Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act may be imposed, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 24.07.2024 set aside; Deputy Commissioner to accept conversion charges and pass conversion order within two months.

Sri D Shivalingegowda @ D S Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:41053 WP No. 23687 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23687 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI D SHIVALINGEGOWDA @ D.S. GOWDA S/O S.L. DODDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 564, AMRUTHA SINCHANA, SIR M V LAYOUT 3RD BLOCK BANGALORE-560 110

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT KANDHAYA BHAVAN K G RAOD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶16

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:41053 WP No. 23687 of 2024

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING SECTION T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNX-A DTD. 24.07.2024 MADE IN NO. AFFIDAVIT ID864370 PASSED BY THE R-2 REJECTING THE APPLICATION / REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ANNX-A DTD. 04.05.2024 SEEKING FOR CONVERSION OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 18 MEASURING 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS OF KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, CONVERTING FROM AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE INTO NONAGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE AS PER THE REVISED MASTER PLAN (IN SHORT) RMP 2015 AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated

¶27

24.07.2024 passed by respondent No.2 thereby rejecting the petitioner's application seeking conversion of the land on the premise that conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural industrial purpose cannot

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:41053 WP No. 23687 of 2024

¶30

be considered without securing NOC from respondent No.3/BDA.

¶31

The issue on hand is exhaustively dealt by

¶32

this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.23074/2024 D.D. 26.9.2024. This Court

¶33

following the principles laid down by the Full Bench in W.P.60483/2016 has passed a detailed order which is clearly on an identical set of facts. The relevant

¶34

Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 are extracted as under:

¶35

"7. Upon careful examination of the impugned 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 non-agricultural 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 statute, and no additional steps or restrictions can be imposed that are not expressly provided for.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:41053 WP No. 23687 of 2024

¶38

8. The Full Bench, while addressing the interplay 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."

¶39

3. In the light of the law laid down by this Court

¶40

in the reported judgment, the impugned endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. Merely because, the authority intends to acquire the property in future, the petitioner's right to seek conversion cannot be declined. The said issue is clearly dealt and decided by this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.23074/2014. The principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment are squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:41053 WP No. 23687 of 2024

¶43