Back
1990 Supreme(Kar) 440
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Hanumanthappa
H.HIRIYANNAIAH - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER - Respondent
WPs 22998 Of 1989
Decided On : 08/28/1990
Advocates Appeared :
H.Kantharaj, M.Ranga Rao, Maina Tai Kheny, P.Krishnappa
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Divisional Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and the proviso to Section 56(3) does not confer 'suo motu' revisional powers on a Revenue Officer including the Divisional Commissioner.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Section 56(3) - Section 95(4) - Section 49 - The court held that the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner or the show cause notices issued by him under Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are without jurisdiction. The court interpreted the provisions of Section 56(3) and Section 95(4) and concluded that the Divisional Commissioner did not have the authority to exercise powers under Section 56(3) to revise the orders of the subordinate officers. The court also emphasized that the proviso to Section 56(3) does not confer 'suo motu' revisional powers on a Revenue Officer including the Divisional Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of agricultural lands in Bangalore City, sought conversion of their lands to non-agricultural use. The Deputy Commissioner granted the conversion, but the Divisional Commissioner issued show cause notices and passed orders to cancel the conversion, citing violations of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Comprehensive Development Plan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Divisional Commissioner's orders and show cause notices were without jurisdiction as he did not have the authority to exercise powers under Section 56(3) to revise the orders of the subordinate officers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Divisional Commissioner had the jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and pass orders to cancel the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 56(3) and Section 95(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, emphasizing that the power under Section 56(3) can be exercised only by aggrieved persons and not suo motu by the authorities. The court also clarified that the proviso to Section 56(3) does not confer 'suo motu' revisional powers on a Revenue Officer including the Divisional Commissioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the final orders and show cause notices issued by the Divisional Commissioner, and reserved the liberty to the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings challenging the conversion orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner before the appropriate authority.
( 1 ) THE question of law involved in these Writ Petitions since common, they are heard together.
( 2 ) THE attack to the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 56 (3) of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is, such orders are illegal and without jurisdiction. Before arriving at a conclusion whether the orders passed under Section 56 (3) of the Act by the divisional Commissioner or the show cause notices issued by him under Section 56 (3) of the Act which are also challenged in some of the Writ Petitions, are in accordance with law, it is proper to state a few facts.
( 3 ) AS per the petitioners, they are the owners of certain agricultural lands situated within the bangalore City or its surroundings. In view of the fast growing of the City and as it was difficult for them to cultivate the land as they were of small bits, they thought of converting the said lands from agriculture to non-agriculture, so that after conversion they can build their houses and start living therein. As law abiding citizens they gave applications together with documents to the deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, to accord sanction for conversion of lands in question from agriculture to non-agriculture. The Deputy Commissioner who is the Competent Authority, after taking into consideration the request of the petitioners and the materials made available including the existing Comprehensive Development Plan, etc. , accorded sanction under Section 95 (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue " Act 1964 to convert the lands in question from agriculture to non-agriculture, imposing certain conditions including payment of conversion charges as prescribed under the Rule 107 (1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) rules, 1984. Pursuant to the same, some of the petitioners paid necessary conversion charges and others were making preparation for payment of necessary charges. At that stage, the divisional Commissioner issued show cause notices to some of the petitioners calling them to show cause why the order of conversion granted by the Deputy Commissioner should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in his show cause notices. The grounds mentioned in one of the show cause notices, which are similar in all the show cause notices, are extracted below: (Annexure-B in W. P. 6426 of 1990) "recd. 23-10-1989 Office of the Divisional commissioner, Bangalore division, Vishweswaraiah tower, Dr. Ambedkar veedhi, Bangalore. No. ALN (B)CR 186/89-90 Dated: 27-9-1989 show CAUSE NOTICE in your application dated 20-4-1989 conversion of 10 guntas extent of agricultural land in survey No. 40/1 of Kadirenahalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore district was sought under Section 95 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1974 before the special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore District, Bangalore and in the Official memorandum No. B. DIS. ALN. SR (S) 58/89-90 dated 1-6-1989 conversion of the said extent of agricultural land for non-agricultural residential purpose has been sanctioned by the Special deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore District, Bangalore. During routine inspection of subordinate offices, the file pertaining to the said sanction order has been examined. It is observed that sanction of conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural residential purpose accorded in the Official Memorandum No. B. DIS. ALN. SR (S) 58/89-90 dated 1-6-1989 is contrary to law and facts because:
1) The conversion of Agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes is subject to provisions of any law relating to the Town and Country Planning or the erection of buildings under sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act is in force. Under the provisions of this Act, the Government in the notification No. HUD 3 TTP 83 dated 12-10-1984 had approved the comprehensive development Plan of Bangalore Metropolitan area and the same was published in t
