Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 1623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Krishna S. Dixit, J.
Venkateshappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3634 of 2022 (KLR-CON)
Decided On : 09-11-2022
R.Srinivasa Gowda, Advocate, Praveen Kumar Hiremath, Advocate
The legal principle established is that the failure of authorities to decide on land conversion applications within the statutory period results in automatic conversion under the deeming provision of the law.
Headnote:
DEEMING PROVISION - LAND CONVERSION - The court interpreted the deeming provision under Sec. 95(6) of the 1964 Act, establishing that if no decision is made on an application for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use within four months, the land is automatically deemed converted. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to quash the impugned order and recognize the conversion, provided the petitioner pays the necessary fees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order regarding the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, arguing that the law mandates a four-month decision period, after which the conversion should be deemed approved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deeming provision was clear and that the absence of a decision within the stipulated four months resulted in automatic conversion. The court also noted that the petitioner had obtained the necessary sanction from the Planning Authority.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deemed conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use due to the lack of a decision within the prescribed four-month period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deeming provision under Sec. 95(6) of the 1964 Act is unambiguous, and failure to act within the specified timeframe results in automatic conversion, reinforcing the principle that administrative bodies must adhere to statutory timelines.
Final Decision: The court issued a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Deputy Commissioner's order and directed that the land be considered converted to non-agricultural use, contingent upon the petitioner paying the required conversion fees.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 12/8/2021 made by the 2nd Respondent - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-A under his request for conversion of the agricultural land to non-agricultural user.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the law prescribes a period of four months, for disposing off applications of the kind, his client is entitled to benefit of deemed conversion in terms of Sub-Sec. 5 of Sec. 95 of the 1964 Act if no order is made within the said period. Therefore, impugned order needs to be voided and declaration for deeming needs to be accorded. He also notifies to the Court that the Planning Authority has granted sanction vide order dtd. 16/8/2021 and that would also strengthen the case of his client.
3. learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural user is a serious matter in a country which is predominantly dependant upon agriculture as the way of life; in order to seek benefit of deeming provision, the application has to be choate in all respects and only then such a benefit can be claimed and not otherwise. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the deeming provision as enacted under Sec. 95(6) of the 1964 Act is as clear as Gangetic Waters. If no decision is taken within four months, the land stands automatically converted to non-agricultural user.
5. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that after the expiry of prescribed period of four months, the question of passing any order would not arise. There is a catena of decisions of this Court echoing this view. Therefore much deliberation is not warranted at the hands of this Court. Added, Petitioner has also secured the required sanction from the Planning Authority on 16/8/2021 which would also enure to the benefit of his client.
6. In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.A direction issues to the Second respondent to consider the subject land as having been converted to the nonagricultural user by virtue of deeming provision; it hardly needs to be stated that he petitioner is liable to pay conversion fine & other levies in respect of which the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate proceedings immediately. If conversion fee/levy is not paid by the Petitioner within four weeks on demand, he shall not be entitled to take benefit of this judgment.
7. It is made clear that on the basis of deemed conversion, the Petitioner may develop the property in question strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Costs made easy.
