ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by 1st respondent in LNA/CR/176/201/2009-10, whereunder the 1st respondent had refused the de-alienation/diversion or conversion of land belonging to the petitioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) pursuant to an application by the petitioner seeking for conversion of agricultural land belonging to the petitioner to non-agricultural-industrial purposes.

2. The refusal made by 1st respondent is on the ground that there is no approach or access to the property belonging to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner states that the subject land comes within the urban developed area within the jurisdiction of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority. The said land finds place in Comprehensive Development Plan issued by the said authority and has been reserved for industrial purposes in the said Comprehensive Development Plan. The petitioner states that both his land as also the land belonging to his neighbour has an approach road of 12 meters width and infact the land belonging to his neighbour has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes on the basis of the said road. Therefore, non conversion of the land belonging to the petitioner is discriminating in nature.

4. It is submitted that the lands covered under Sy. Nos. 25, 26, 27 were renumbered as Block No. 50. Out of said land, the petitioner has acquired 4 acres 9 guntas in Block No. 51A-3 and 2 acres 3 guntas in Block No. 50A-3.

5. The petitioner contends that a perusal of Comprehensive Development Plan itself would disclose that there is an access to the erstwhile Sy. No. 27 and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed on that basis and the contention that the petitioner has no access to his land is misplaced.

6. The application having been filed on 02.05.2006, it is only on 29.03.2006 vide Annexure-H1 that 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the application cannot be considered since there was no approach road. The petitioner therefore requested the 1st respondent to reconsider the same. On 20.07.2006, 1st respondent refused to grant permission stating that only if the petitioner were to apply fresh application by providing a road connection, then the fresh application would be considered.

7. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘KAT’ for brevity) in Appeal Nos. 919-920/2006. KAT was pleased to set aside the order dated 20.07.2006 of 1st respondent in No. LNA/CR/201/05-06 and LNA/CR/176/05-06 by holding that there is an approach road to the land in question and such refusal for conversion by 1st respondent was illegal. The KAT taking into consideration that the lands have been earmarked for industrial purposes directed the 6th respondent to pass appropriate orders for conversion of the land for industrial purposes in accordance with law.

8. In view of the said order of KAT, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 20.01.2008 enclosing the orders of KAT and requested for necessary conversion of land for industrial purposes. There was no action taken with regard thereto. Hence, invoking Section 95(5) of the Act, the petitioner deeming it that the application for conversion has been allowed since the respondents had not rejected the application within the period of four months from the date of application approached the 1st respondent and sought for issuance of challan for payment of requisite conversion fee. Subsequently another application was filed by the petitioner on 10.09.2009. However on 15.02.2010, 1st respondent rejected the application of the petitioner once again stating that there is no approach road to the lands of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court.

9. Sri. J.S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that t