The Deputy Commissioner has the authority to refuse land conversion if it violates the non-alienation clause of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, ensuring agricultural land is not misused.

ORDER :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

In the captioned petition, petitioner is assailing the endorsement dated 23.08.2016 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A denying conversion of petition land. The said order is under challenge.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner’s father, Late Maurice D’Souza, filed Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy rights over the petition lands, as he was cultivating them. Simultaneously, one Martin Inthru D’Souza also filed Form No.7, asserting his occupancy rights over the same land. Given the existence of rival claims for tenancy, this Court, by its order dated 07.04.2006, referred the matter to the Land Tribunal, Udupi, for adjudication. Subsequently, both the petitioner and the rival claimant, Martin Inthru D’Souza, filed a joint compromise petition before the Land Tribunal, Udupi. In terms of the compromise reached between the parties, the Land Tribunal, Udupi, passed an order based on the joint compromise petition. Consequently, the earlier independent orders, dated 16.09.1981 in favour of the petitioner’s father and 09.09.1981 in favour of the rival claimant, were restored. This compromise was duly recorded on 18.12.2012.

3. The petitioner contends that the 1981 order, which granted occupancy rights to the petitioner’s father, was restored through the compromise recorded in 2012. According to the petitioner, the 2012 order merely reaffirmed and validated the occupancy rights that were already granted to his father in 1981. The petitioner asserts that this reaffirmation of occupancy rights in favour of his father entitles him to apply for conversion of the petition lands. However, the Deputy Commissioner, through the impugned endorsement, rejected the petitioner’s application for conversion. The petitioner claims that the rejection is without proper consideration of the restored 1981 order and the subsequent compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 1981 order, being restored and reaffirmed through the 2012 compromise, conclusively grants occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner’s father. Therefore, the rejection of the conversion application by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing for the respondent-State, contended that the Deputy Commissioner acted within his authority while rejecting the petitioner’s application and justified the impugned endorsement.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.

7. Upon perusal of the records, it is observed that the petitioner has only produced the latest Land Tribunal order dated 18.12.2012, wherein occupancy rights were granted based on the terms of the joint memo filed by both the petitioner and the rival claimant. The petitioner’s contention is that the occupancy rights initially granted by the Land Tribunal in 1981 were sought to be restored through the joint memo submitted before the Tribunal in 2012. However, this argument does not hold ground in view of the pleadings made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition.

8. The petitioner unequivocally acknowledges in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal on 16.09.1981 were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.40085/1993 vide order dated 07.04.2006. Once the order granting occupancy rights was set aside, the petitioner’s argument that the 2012 order granting occupancy rights in terms of the joint memo would date back to the original 1981 order is fundamentally misconceived and legally untenable. The 2012 order stands as an independent grant based on the compromise entered into between the parties, and it cannot retrospectively validate or revive the 1981 order that was already set aside by this Court.

9. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to place on record Form No.10, which is a statutory document of significance under the Karnataka Land Refor