The main legal point established is that under Sec. 95(9) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner is obligated to communicate the fine payable for conversion, and upon payment, the deeming conversion immediately comes into operation.

JUDGMENT :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. –

1. The captioned petition is filed questioning the order dated 19/21/6/2019 passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A. The petitioner has also sought a declaration to declare that the petitioner has deemed conversion of land by virtue of Sec. 95(9) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').

2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.148/2 measuring 1.32 acres situated at Honaganahalli Village, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District. The petitioner claims that the petition land was allotted to his share under registered partition deed dtd. 20/12/2004. The petition land consists of building stones in an area of 1.20 acres and therefore, the petitioner with a view to obtain quarry licence, submitted an application on 14/5/2015. On receipt of the application, the authority sought opinion from various departments. The jurisdictional Tahsildar after verification has endorsed that the petition land is a private patta land and has consequently granted 'No objection'. The Assistant Commissioner has also issued a certificate to that effect. The forest department has also issued 'No objection' for quarry licence in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application to the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner in terms of deemed conversion under sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 95 of the Act. Meanwhile, the respondent No.3 having received the report under Rule 8(5) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the KMMC Rules'), issued a notification on 25/11/2017 notifying the grant of quarry licence in favour of the petitioner. However, the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner failed to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court and on receipt of notice, the Government Advocate produced endorsement dtd. 29/6/2019 inter alia stating that the application submitted for conversion of land is rejected.

4. The respondent No.3 pursuant to rejection of the application seeking conversion withdrew the notification by order dated 19/21/6/2019. Assailing the order dated 19/21/6/2019 passed by the respondent No.3 and also being aggrieved by the rejection of the application by the respondent No.4, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the respondent No.3 having issued the notification after securing report from all the competent authorities was not justified in withdrawing the said notification as per the impugned order dated 19/21/6/2019 as per Annexure-A on the ground that the conversion application is rejected by the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner. He would further contend that the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner was not justified in examining the materials which do not fall within the ambit of sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 95 of the Act and therefore, he would submit to this Court that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is not sustainable and therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents repelling the contentions would submit to this Court that the prayers (a) and (b) sought in the present writ petition cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction since the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Rule 53 of the KMMC Rules. However, he would fairly submit that the prayer made at (c) in regard to deemed conversion under sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 95 of the Act may be allowed.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the records.

8. The respondent No.3 having issued the notification under Rule 8(5) of the KMMC Rules, has proceeded to withdraw the same on the ground that the appli