Agricultural land within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or Corporation does not require conversion under the KLR Act, and once land is converted for non-agricultural commercial purposes, the TMC cannot restrict its usage to only petrol bunk purposes.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 13/10/2022 passed by Respondent No. 4/Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal bearing No. BLH-BL-52-2022-23 vide Annexure-G; in the alternative.

(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2/Deputy Commissioner to positively consider the application filed by the Petitioner dated 18/05/2023 vide Annexure-H.

(c) Pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to meet the ends of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner’s father was the original owner of land bearing R.S. No. 392/4 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, situated at Bailahongal, Taluk and District-Belagavi. The father of the petitioner applied for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes. As regards which, an official memorandum dated 31.03.2016 came to be issued permitting conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural commercial (petrol pump) purposes on 30.03.2016.

3. The petitioner established a petrol pump on a portion of the property measuring 14,436.30 sq. ft. and proposed to use the balance land for putting up commercial building and as such, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 for grant of building plan sanction for commercial purpose, which came to be rejected by respondent No. 4 on the ground that the conversion order was only for non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes thereby meaning that the said order did not permit the usage of land for commercial purposes, which is challenged by the petitioner before this Court.

4. Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land of the petitioner comes within the jurisdiction of the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal (for short “TMC”) the said TMC has assessed the property to tax, issued property No. 418/392/7/P-4 and has been collecting property tax in relation thereto.

5. The property having lost its agricultural character, coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC, there is no requirement for the petitioner to once again apply for and get conversion changed from non-agricultural commercial (Petrol Bunk) purposes to non-agricultural commercial purposes only.

6. On that basis, he submits that the endorsement at Annexure-G, which has been issued is contrary to the applicable law and in that regard he relies on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) dated 21.02.2018, which on appeal has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 100124/2018 (Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority, Navanagar vs. State of Karnataka and Another) vide judgment dated 22.10.2018.

7. His submission is that once the land comes within the urban agglomeration or within the municipal limits, section 95 to 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “KLR Act”) are not applicable and in this case, the land already having been converted from agricultural to commercial albeit for petrol bunk purposes, the land has lost agricultural character and as such, now the TMC cannot insist on restricting the usage of land for petrol pump purposes only and ought to have permitted the petitioner for using it for commercial purposes. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for be granted.

8. Sri. Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that the conversion order being restricted to non-agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purposes, the TMC is bound to implement the conversion order to such restricted purposes and commercial purpose cannot be permitted and as such he supports the impugned endorsement, which is challenged in this case.

9. Heard Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for respo