Writ jurisdiction is not meant for issue of declaration in favor of a private person even assuming reliance is placed on statutory provisions such as sub-section 5 of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

1. Misc W No 328 of 2011 for early hearing is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

2. Writ jurisdiction is not meant for issue of declaration in favour of a private person even assuming reliance is placed on some statutory provisions such as sub-section 5 of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act].

3. The present petition is by a person who, it appears had applied for conversion of his agricultural land for non-agricultural use to an extent of 4 acres 14 guntas in Sy No 155/2 of Kuduvathi village, Nandi hobli, Chikkaballapur taluk and district, in terms of his application dated 13-7-2009.

4. It is because the petitioner was aggrieved by the endorsement dated 19-4-2010 [copy at Annexure-K to the writ petition] issued by the Deputy Commissioner apprising the petitioner that the said application has been rejected for the reason that the petitioner has conveniently fenced of a public pathway that was existing in the subject land, as apprised by the tahsildar of the taluk etc.

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri S R Krishnakumar, learned counsel, is that the statuary provisions enable the petitioner to claim a deemed permission in terms of subsection (5) of Section 95 of the Act with the moment the period of four months expired from the date of application and if the Deputy Commissioner concerned had not indicated the applicant that the application has been rejected, the statute operates for a deemed permission and when the petitioner enabled under a deemed permission, there is no question of Deputy Commissioner issuing an endorsement to the petitioner subsequent to the expiry of the period of four months and in the instant case as per the endorsement dated 19-4-2010.6. It is also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner ceased to have jurisdiction after the expiry of four months period from the date of application. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this court in the case of RUDRASWAMY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [ILR 1994 KAR 2958] and B DOLLAIAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [1995(1) KAR LJ 525].

7. It is not necessary for this court to go into these questions, inasmuch as in the first instance, the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 49 of the Act.

8. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied not only on the judgment in the case of RUDRASWAMY [supra], but also another judgment of this court in the case of NARAYANA SHETTY vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [WP No 455 OF 1971, rendered on 11-10-1973, and reported as Short Note Case item No 87 in 1974(1) KAR LJ 25], to submit that al alternative remedy cannot come in the way of the petitioner seeking relief before this court, more so when there is an order without jurisdiction etc.

9. To make good this submission, Sri Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Annexure-J, purported to be a copy of the application made to the tahsildar in Annexure-I dated 4-7-2009. It is seen that the application is addressed to the tahsildar, Chikkaballapur taluk.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to a government circular issued vide Notification No RD 7 LGP 95, dated 7-6-1999, published in the Karnataka gazette dated 8-6-1999, issued guidelines for simplifying and for maintaining a uniformity in granting permission to conversion to non-agricultural purpose with the stipulation that the authorities have to scrupulously adhere to the guidelines, reading as under:

1. The process of Granting/Rejecting conversion shall be completed within 45 days of the receipt of the application. If the concerned sanctioning authorities do not adhere to the time schedule, they will be liable to disciplinary action.

2. The applications seeking conversion of land shall be received in duplicate by the Tahsildar’s office in the form prescri