Only conversion charges can be levied for converting 'A' kharab land to non-agricultural use, not market value, as established by the court's interpretation of relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.59394/2016 (KLR-RES).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.73/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. He sought conversion of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The appellant No.2 issued an endorsement dated 01.02.2014 directing the respondent to pay Rs.47,50,000/- i.e. the market value of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The respondent paid the said amount and conversion order was issued which was later challenged and a refund was sought. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material or record directed the appellant No.2 to refund the amount. Being aggrieved, the State is in appeal.

3. Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the conversion sought by the respondent is for 9½ guntas of 'A' kharab land and the State Government is the owner of the said land. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay the market value of the said land as he would be using the said land as the owner. It is submitted that the demand by the appellant No.2 to pay the market value of the 'A' kharab land is pursuant to the circular dated 16.09.1994 at Annexure-R1 and the Government order dated 16.05.2018, wherein the appellant No.1 had issued directions and guidelines to all the Deputy Commissioners to collect the market value of the kharab land, collect the conversion fees and thereafter, consider the application for conversion. However, this aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the respondent has agreed and paid the market value of the kharab land and seeking refund of the same after the conversion order has been passed is impermissible as is evident from the letter dated 02.02.2013 at Annexure-R8. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Phaneendra, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Sammith S., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge, considering the law laid down by this Court has recorded a clear finding that the appellant No.2 cannot collect the market value of the land for 'A' kharab land and directed to refund the amount. It is submitted that the 'A' kharab land is an unarable land that goes along with the cultivable land and for conversion, the Authorities are entitled to collect only conversion charges for 'A' kharab land and not the market price. It is further submitted that if the kharab is 'B' phut kharab, then the State is entitled to collect the market price of 'B' phut kharab land and also the conversion fees if the application is filed for conversion. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. P.BHIMACHAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. , 1966 (2) Mys LJ 184

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS Vs. ISTAK AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND OTHERS, 2015 SCC Online Kar 8640

3. L.A.KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , 2009 SCC Online Kar 38

4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.G.ANURADHA , W.A.No.3524 of 2009 dtd 26.07.2010

5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. L.A.KRISHNAPPA , W.A.No.2274 of 2009 dtd 28.07.2010

Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, the learned Senior co