M/S Reddy Gun House v. Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2025WP/2960/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reddy Gun House; arms and ammunition dealership licence; Form VIII and Form IX; deposit and major repair licence; Arms Act 1959; Arms Rules 2016 Rule 13; Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 Sections 95-97; deemed conversion of land within municipal limits; Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976; Bidadi Municipal Corporation; W.P.No.107283/2023 (Dharwad Bench, 03.01.2024); W.P.No.22427/2024; Kirloskar Electrical; Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority; quashing of rejection order HD 249 KAA 2023 dated 25.09.2024; M. Nagaprasanna; WP No. 2960 of 2025 (GM-RES); NC: 2025:KHC:9696; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order No.HD 249 KAA 2023 dated 25.09.2024 rejecting the petitioner's arms and ammunition dealership licence application is quashed. ¶¶98

M/S Reddy Gun House Vs Additional Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned order No.HD 249 KAA 2023 dated 25.09.2024 rejecting the petitioner's arms and ammunition dealership licence application is quashed.

¶¶98

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for arms and ammunition dealership licence (Forms VIII and IX) solely on the ground that the business premises is not converted from agricultural to commercial purpose and remains agricultural is sustainable. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

In the light of the finding rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench (Dharwad Bench) in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated 03.01.2024, the Court deems it appropriate to follow suit, and consequently holds that the impugned rejection of the petitioner's licence application on the ground of non-conversion of the premises cannot be sustained.

¶¶94

Ratio / Principle

Despite the vehement opposition of the learned HCGP contending that the Dharwad Bench order had been carried before the Division Bench at Dharwad and that no order of stay was granted, the Court proceeded to follow that order.

¶¶92

Key takeaways

The impugned order bearing No.HD 249 KAA 2023 dated 25.09.2024 rejecting the petitioner's application is quashed.ratio¶¶98

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arms and Ammunition dealership licence – application in Forms VIII and IX (deposit and major repairs) under the Arms Act, 1959 rejected by order No.HD 249 KAA 2023 dated 25.09.2024 solely on the ground that the business premises was not converted from agricultural to commercial purpose – premises constructed on a Gram Panchayat (Bidadi)-sanctioned plan, the area now being the Bidadi Municipal Corporation – Court follows the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated 03.01.2024, which held (as reproduced) that agricultural land coming within the limits of a Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 is deemed converted for non-agricultural purposes and Sections 95 to 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are not applicable to such land – objection of learned HCGP that no stay was granted on the Dharwad order noted and not acted upon – writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed; impugned order quashed (Justice M.Nagaprasanna, 06.03.2025).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. REDDY GUN HOUSE,

¶9

REGISTERED COMPANY'S ACT 2013, OFFICE AT NO.21, GROUND FLOOR, TKM MAIN ROAD, MEDANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA - 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARPITHA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,, VIJAYA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA - 562 159, BOTH REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ISSUE THE PETITIONER'S FORM VIII

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶21

AND IX LICENSE FOR ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERSHIP, DEPOSIT AND MAJOR REPAIR LICENSE AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-B.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 25.09.2024, which rejects the grant of license of

¶26

the petitioner to deal with Arms and Ammunition in terms of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶27

Heard Sri. Praveen S., learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

¶29

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶30

The landlord of the petitioner obtains sanction for construction of a building in the Gram Panchayath of Gram Panchayat, Bidadi. The building is thus constructed after the said permission being granted by the Gram Panchayat, which is now the Bidadi Municipal Corporation, nonetheless, the plan

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶32

sanctioned does not get wiped out because of it becoming the Municipal Corporation.

¶33

The petitioner then files an application seeking license for dealership in Arms and Ammunition for deposit and major repairs. The application was not considered. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.22427/2024, which comes to be disposed on

¶34

21.08.2024, by the following order:

¶35

" 2. The petitioner asserts that they have applied to respondent No.1 for the grant of a license for an Arms and Ammunition dealership in Form No.VIII and IX. The said application is required to be considered within 60 days of receiving the Police report, as stipulated under Rule 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the prescribed time limit, the respondents have not considered their application.

¶36

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner’s application will be considered in accordance with the law if a reasonable time is granted.

¶37

Accordingly, it is expedient to dispose of the petition by directing respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 07.08.2023, as per Annexure-'B', and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶40

The result of the direction that is rendered in the aforesaid order by the Co-ordinate Bench is the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner. The rejection of the application of the petitioner is not on the strength of any violation under the Arms Act, 1959, but on the score that the building or the shop in which the petitioner is wanting to setup his business is not converted to commercial purpose and still in the agricultural stage.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶42

take this Court through the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench on identical circumstances to buttress his submission the entire issue stands covered by the order passed by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated 03.01.2024.

¶43

In that light, I deem it appropriate to notice the order passed by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023, which reads as follows:

¶44

"5. The property having lost its agricultural character, coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC, there is no requirement for the petitioner to once again apply for and get conversion changed from non-agricultural commercial

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶47

(Petrol Bunk) purposes to non-agricultural commercial purposes only.

¶48

On that basis, he submits that the endorsement at Annexure-G, which has been issued is contrary to the applicable law and in that regard he relies on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co.Pvt.Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) dated 21.02.2018, which on appeal has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100124/2018 (Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority, Navanagar v. The State of Karnataka and another) vide judgment dated 22.10.2018.

¶49

His submission is that once the land comes within the urban agglomeration or within the municipal limits, section 95 to 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “KLR Act”) are not applicable and in this case, the land already having been converted from agricultural to commercial albeit for petrol bunk purposes, the land has lost agricultural character and as such, now the TMC cannot insist on restricting the usage of land for petrol pump purposes only and ought to have permitted the petitioner for using it for commercial purposes. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.

¶50

Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the conversion order being restricted to non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes, the TMC is bound to implement the conversion order to such restricted purposes and commercial purpose cannot be permitted and as such he supports the impugned endorsement, which is challenged in this case.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶53

Heard Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused the papers.

¶54

The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

¶55

10.1. Whether the agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or would the said land be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes?

¶56

10.2. Whether in the present case, the land having already been converted for nonagricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and the land coming within the jurisdiction of TMC, could the TMC restrict the usage of the property for petrol bunk purposes only disregarding the conversion for nonagricultural commercial purposes?

¶57

10.3. What order?

¶58

I answer the above points as under:

¶59

Answer to point No.1: Whether the agricultural land

¶60

coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would require to be

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶63

converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or would the said land be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes?

¶64

12.1. This issue is no longer res-integra. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 in W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) has categorically came to a conclusion that once the land comes within the City Municipal Council area, conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose is not required and in this regard reference was made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in M.Muninarayana Swamy and another v. State of Karnataka and in the case of Sri.S.Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka and others .

¶65

12.2. In S.Krishnappa’s case, this Court had categorically came to a conclusion that the provision of the KLR Act have no application to the lands that fall within the territorial limits of Brihut Benagaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP).

¶66

12.3. BBMP being a Municipal Corporation under the KMC Act, 1976, a TMC occupies similar position as a Corporation and as such, the very same principle would apply to even a TMC. Hence, the provision of KLR Act would have no application to the lands falling within the territorial limits of a TMC.

¶67

12.4. In that view of the matter, there would be no requirement for a land owner of the land coming within the limits of TMC to seek conversion of the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶70

land under Section 95 of the KLR Act from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes once the land comes within the limits of TMC.

¶71

12.5. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would not require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, section 95 to 97 thereof not being applicable to such land the said land would be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes.

¶72

13. Answer to Point No.2: Whether in the present case, the land having already been converted for non- agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and the land coming within the jurisdiction of TMC, could the TMC restrict the usage of the property for petrol bunk purposes only disregarding the conversion for non-agricultural commercial purposes?

¶73

13.1. Irrespective of my answer to point No.1, in the present case, the land of the petitioner has already been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes vide official memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner dated 31.03.2016 i.e. the land was converted for non-agricultural purposes before it came within the TMC limits by following the due procedure under Section 95 of the KLR Act. Thus, the said land has not been assessed to tax as an agricultural land but has now been assessed to tax on the basis of the Municipal number allotted to the said property by the TMC.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶76

13.2. The artificial distinction that the TMC wishes to draw between a land converted for non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and a land converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose is not sustainable and is an effort or an exercise in futility inasmuch as it is very clear from the official memorandum itself that the land has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose albeit for petrol bunk.

¶77

13.3. What is important to be considered is the conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and not what has been stated in bracket as “petrol bunk” for the TMC to contend that the usage of land is restricted to petrol bunk purpose. Furthermore, the petitioner has already established a petrol bunk in an extent measuring 14,436.30 sq. ft., the land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, the balance land is proposed to be used by the petitioner for commercial purposes.

¶78

13.4. Thus, in my considered opinion, the TMC cannot put the cart before the horse and restrict the usage of land only for petrol bunk purpose after the petrol bunk has already been established. On this ground also, the endorsement issued by the TMC falls foul of the applicable law.

¶79

13.5. As such, I answer point No.2 by holding that the TMC cannot seek to restrict the usage of land of the petitioner to only petrol bunk when the land has been converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose.

¶80

Answer to point No.3: In view of my answer to points 1 and 2 above, I pass the following:

¶81

10 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:9696 WP No. 2960 of 2025

¶83

ORDER

¶84

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶85

ii) A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 13.10.2012 issued by respondent No.4-TMC, Bailhongal vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶86

iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to consider the conversion order already issued taking into consideration the land coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC and issue such building licence as eligible by following the building bye-laws applicable to the said property within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶87

iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly."

¶88

The Dharwad Bench in the afore-extracted judgment holds that once agricultural land comes within the jurisdiction of Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation, the procedure prescribed under Sections 95 and 96 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, would become applicable and the land would be deemed to be converted, is the finding rendered by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023.

¶89

In the light of the finding rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, the issue in the lis need to detain this Court for long or delve further deep into the matter despite the vehement opposition of the learned HCGP contending that the

¶90