Back
1986 Supreme(Kar) 50
Karnataka High Court
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Ryots Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society employees Co-operative Society Ltd - Respondent
Decided On : 01-27-86
The Deputy Commissioner may not refuse conversion if it is not covered by the prohibitions contained in Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 itself and take into consideration the extraneous reasons which may be available to him under other laws.
Headnote:
Conversion - Land Revenue Act - Deputy Commissioner's power to refuse conversion under Section 95 - The court held that the Deputy Commissioner may not refuse conversion if it is not covered by the prohibitions contained in Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 itself and take into consideration the extraneous reasons which may be available to him under other laws.
Fact of the Case:
The State was aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, refusing grant of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court applied the ratio of a previous case and held that the Tribunal had correctly directed the conversion, rejecting the petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to refuse conversion under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Deputy Commissioner may not refuse conversion if it is not covered by the prohibitions contained in Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 itself and take into consideration the extraneous reasons which may be available to him under other laws.
Final Decision: The Tribunal's decision directing the conversion was upheld, and the petition was rejected.
( 1 ) THE question raised on behalf of the state Government in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in writ petition No. 1189/1978, disposed of on 1. 8. 1984, I therefore should not do anything more than apply the ratio of that case to the facts of the present case.
( 2 ) THE State feels aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal made on 23rd March, 1985 in Appeal no. 410 of 1985 filed by the 1st respondent in respect of the land acquired bearing Sy. Nos. 200/5, 201 /1 and 2 measuring in all 2 acres 29 guntas situate in kiragandoor village in Mandya taluk, setting aside the order of the Deputy commissioner, Mandya, refusing grant of conversion under Section 95 of the karnataka LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964.
( 3 ) THIS court in the afore mentioned writ petition on identical facts held as follows :"when an application for conversion is refused, as in the present case, the last reason contemplated by Section 95 (3) of the Act cannot be pressed into service. Assuming that a company cannot hold agricultural land under the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, in such an event also, that does not constitute a reason falling within the purview of Section 95 (3) of the Act. From this, it follows that this reason is totally irrelevant to section 95 of the Act". In other words, a Deputy Commissioner may not refuse conversion, if it is not covered by the prohibitions contained in Section 95 of Land Revenue act, 1964 itself and take into consideration the extraneous reasons which may be available to him under other laws. This is the more prudent approach because the other laws imposing prohibition on the alienation of agricultural lands in favour of disqualified persons has got its own machinery to deal with the breach of the laws and the Special deputy Commissioner acting under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act cannot assume those functions. For the aforementioned reasons, I hold that the Tribunal has correctly directed the conversion and the petition is therefore rejected.
--- *** ---
.
