Ghouse Mohiundeen Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

GHOUSE MOHIUNDEEN KHAN SON OF (LATE) MUBARAK AHAMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT #91/B, IRALEVALAMUDI VILLAGE, SOMWARPETE TALUK, IRALE VALAMAUDI, CHETTALLI, SOMWARPET, KODAGU-571218.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, SH 27, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SOMAVARPETE SUB-DIVISION, SH 27, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.

¶16

THE THASILDAR SOMAVARPETE TALUK, SH 27, MADIKERI, KODAGU-571201.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RECEIVE NECESSARY CONVERSION CHARGES AND ISSUE CONVERSION ORDER SINCE, THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 317/6 MEASURING 1 ACRE 80 CENTS SITUATED AT IRALEVALAMUDI VILLAGE, SOMAWARPETE TALUK, IRALE VALAAUDI, CHETTALLI, SOMWARPET, KODAGU IS DEEMED TO BE CONVICTED FROM AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE TO COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

C.A.V. ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed seeking direction in the

¶26

form of Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to receive necessary conversion charges and issue conversion order.

¶27

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶28

The petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 317/6, measuring 1 acre and 80 cents, situated in Iralevalamudi Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Irale Valamundi, Chettali,

¶29

3

¶30

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶31

Somwarpet, Kodagu District. The petitioner filed an application before the jurisdictional authorities seeking permission for conversion of the aforesaid land from agricultural use to commercial use, in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “KLR Act”). In support of the said application, the petitioner asserts that the jurisdictional Tahsildar, who is arrayed as respondent No.4, conducted a spot inspection of the land in question and subsequently submitted a report recommending the conversion of the land use from agricultural to commercial purposes.

¶32

The petitioner’s grievance is primarily directed against respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, who, according to the petitioner, failed to take any decision on the conversion application within the statutorily prescribed period. The petitioner states that his application for conversion was tendered on 2.11.2016, and under the

¶33

4

¶34

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶35

provisions of Section 95(2) of the KLR Act, the Deputy Commissioner is mandated to either grant or refuse permission within four months from the date of receipt of the application. Accordingly, the said period expired on 1.3.2017. However, the petitioner contends that no decision was communicated to him within this time frame.

¶36

The petitioner further contends that in terms of Section 95(5) of the KLR Act, where the Deputy Commissioner fails to communicate his decision within the stipulated four-month period, the permission for conversion shall be deemed to have been granted. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the endorsements issued by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, which are annexed to the writ petition as Annexures “E” and “F”, are dated subsequent to the expiry of the four-month period. Therefore, he contends that these endorsements have no legal sanctity and cannot be acted

¶37

5

¶38

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶39

upon as they are issued beyond the time prescribed under the statute, and in the absence of any prior notice or intimation issued within the prescribed time limit. Based on the doctrine of deemed permission under Section 95(5), the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to accept the requisite conversion charges

¶40

and pass necessary orders treating the land as converted from agricultural to commercial use.

¶41

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner's land is located in Kodagu District, and therefore, the matter of land conversion is governed by the circular issued by the State Government in the year 2020. The learned AGA emphasizes that under the said circular, conversion of agricultural land for commercial purposes in Kodagu District is expressly prohibited. It is submitted that unless a No

¶42

6

¶43

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶44

Objection Certificate (NOC) is granted by the Deputy Commissioner in compliance with the said circular, the petitioner is not entitled to claim conversion of land use. Thus, the learned AGA argues that there is no illegality in the impugned endorsements or in the actions of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶45

Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and after perusing the records placed before the Court, it is evident that the petitioner submitted the conversion application on 2.11.2016. In terms of Section 95(2) of the KLR Act, the Deputy Commissioner was under a statutory obligation to inform the petitioner of his decision on the said application within four months from the date of receipt, i.e., on or before 1.3.2017. However, from the endorsement dated 17.11.2018, it is apparent that respondent No.2 has failed to act upon the application within the prescribed period.

¶46

7

¶47

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶48

This Court, while dealing with similar issues in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that under Section 95(5) of the KLR Act, if no decision is communicated by the Deputy Commissioner within four months, the permission sought shall be deemed to have been granted. In the present case, as no communication was made within the stipulated time, the principle of deemed conversion stands attracted. Consequently, the subsequent endorsements at Annexures “E” and “F”, being issued after the lapse of the mandatory period and without any prior notice within the said time, cannot be considered valid in the eye of law. If respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner had intended to seek further information or clarification, he ought to have issued an intimation to the petitioner within the four-month window. The failure to do so results in an automatic deemed conversion under Section 95(5) of the KLR Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 is bound to accept

¶49

8

¶50

WP NO.13583 of 2024

¶51

the prescribed conversion charges and issue appropriate orders recognizing the deemed conversion of the land from agricultural to commercial use.

¶52

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to

¶53

pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶56

(ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner to issue conversion order as it is deemed as approved under Section 95(5) of KLR Act.

¶57

(iii) Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to determine the conversion fee and issue a challan to the petitioner.

¶58

(iv) Respondent No.2 shall on receipt of conversion fee and fine shall issue a conversion order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of conversion fee and fine.

¶59

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶60

ALB

Ghouse Mohiundeen Khan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghouse Mohiundeen Khan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash S/O.Marigouda Dharaneppagoudar Vs Sri.Arun S/O.Krishnaji Damodar

H.G. Thimma Reddy S/O Giriyappa @ Giri Gouda Vs Smt.Leelavathi W/O Late Yanka Reddy

Smt. Laxmi Vs Smt. Ushabai

Sri.S.Vazeer Ahmed @ Vazeer Pasha Vs the Joint Director of Land Records

Sri.R. Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer , Vs Doddamani Kariayappa S/O Doddamani Fakkirappa