1. This writ petition raises a short, but interesting question. Succinctly stated, the issue is, as to whether the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, was justified in demanding compounding fee under Rule 107-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” for the sake of brevity) made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in relation to sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the said Act. Annexure-A, the order dated 31/07/2012, is impugned in this writ petition.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted a quarrying licence on 03/06/2000, whereby it was allowed to extract pink granite from an area admeasuring 18.22 acres of ‘patta land’. Similar quarrying licence was granted to the petitioner on 24/05/2002 to extract pink granite in an extent of land admeasuring 11.34 acres. The third quarrying lease was granted to the petitioner on 06/08/2002 for extraction of pink granite from an area admeasuring 4.32 acres of land. These three extents of lands over which quarrying leases were granted are ownership or ‘patta lands’ and agricultural lands. The petitioner commenced quarrying activities on these lands without seeking conversion for non-agricultural use in terms of Section 95 of the Act. It appears that, at that time, the respondent-authorities also did not insist on conversion of lands for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner surrendered the quarrying licences in respect of these areas except one acre from each of the quarrying licences on 06/12/2004. Therefore, from the date of issuance of quarrying licences till the surrender was effected in the year 2004, no conversion of lands was sought by the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent-authorities demanded conversion charges towards non-agricultural use and also compounding fee and penalty. The conversion charges were demanded in respect of all the areas granted for quarrying. Show-cause notice dated 21/04/2009 and also circular dated 28/07/2009 were the subject matter of W.P.No.7604/2010 filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of on 08/11/2010 by a Division Bench of this Court permitting the petitioner herein to make a representation with regard to its grievances on the demand made for compounding fee. While so observing, the Division Bench set aside the demand actually made with regard to compounding fee and penalty. As far as the demand for conversion charges are concerned, the writ petition was dismissed.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 11/12/2010 to the Tahsildar, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District, and on the said representation, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, notified the petitioner in order to hold an enquiry with regard to the directions issued by this Court on compounding fee and after hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 31/07/2012 was made. A direction is also sought to respondent for conversion of the remaining land under the quarrying licence.

4. Smt. Anuradha, appearing for the petitioner contended that the conversion fee on the entire land granted for the purpose of quarrying under three licences has been paid pursuant to the order of the Division Bench passed in W.P.No.7604/2010 and the interim order passed in this writ petition. The only bone of contention between the parties is with regard to compounding fee, which has been demanded under Section 96 (4) of the Act. That the lands in respect of which the quarrying licences have been issued are patta lands and agricultural lands situated in Raichur District. That having regard to the decision of this Court in Shakeel Pasha V/s. N. Sivasailam and others (1987(2) KLJ 219) conversion of patta lands for non-agricultural purposes is not mandated under Section 95(2) of the Act, when it is to be used for extraction of any mineral, such as granite as in the instant case. She stated that the said legal position was altered in the deci