Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36521
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.53053/2018 (KLR-CON)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.52129/2019
WRIT PETITION No.3039/2020
WRIT PETITION No.3099/2020
WRIT PETITION No.3100/2020
IN WRIT PETITION NO.53053/2015
BETWEEN:
NAGESHRAO
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE: 83 YEARS
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI.A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYURU-570 001.
2
2.
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
JHANSI RANI LAXMI BAI ROAD
MYSURU-570 005
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE INTIMATION DTD: 5.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT COPY AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H DISPOSING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING CONVERSION BY HOLDING
THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.52129/2019
BETWEEN:
NAGESH RAO
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE 84 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005
2 . MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
3
MYSORE-560 057
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 05.09.2018 IN FILE ISSUED BY THE
R1, THE COPY AS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-J REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION, BY HOLDING THE
SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3039/2020
BETWEEN:
D SURESH
S/O. LATE K. DORESWAMY,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1042,
=GANGABHI NILAYA=,
S.J.H. MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA,
MYSORE-570 008.
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005.
2 . MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-560 057.
& RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 07.02.2018 ISSUED BY R1,
CERTIFIED
COPY
AS
SERVED
ON
THE
PETITIONER
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N REJECTING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION AND TO
HOLD THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3099/2020
BETWEEN:
K.NARAYANA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGE: 78 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, J.L.B. ROAD
MYSURU-570 005
& RESPONDENT
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HOLD
THAT LAND BEARING SY NO. 294/3 (OLD SY.NO.294/2)
MEASURING 3 ACRES 18 GUNTAS IN KADAKOLA VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT IS
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED U/S 95(5) OF
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964 FOR RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSE AND ETC.
5
IN WRIT PETITION No.3100/2020
BETWEEN:
NAGESHARAO
S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGE: 84 YEARS,
PANJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEERANAPURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK-571 111,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.K.DHIRAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-570 005
2 . MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
JLB ROAD,
MYSURU-560 057
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1
SRI.T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE INTIMATION DATED 05.09.2018 ISSUED BY R-1
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K REJECTING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR CONVERSION AND TO
HOLD THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THESE
PETITIONS
HAVING
BEEN
HEARD
AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
6
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
1.
The petitioners in this case are seeking for
quashing of the endorsements issued by the Deputy
Commissioner by which the Deputy Commissioner has
refused their request for permitting them to use their
agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes and for a
consequential direction to issue a Conversion Certificate.
2.
The fact that the petitioners filed applications
seeking for permission to use their agricultural lands for
non-agricultural purposes as envisaged under Section
95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for
short
8the
Act9)
on
22.08.2017,
18.08.2017
and
31.01.2018 is not dispute.
3.
It
is
not
in
dispute
that
the
Deputy
Commissioner failed to communicate his decision of
either grant or refusal of permission, within four months
as contemplated under Section 95(5) of the Act. As a
consequence, it is the case of the petitioners that the
7
permission that they had applied for is deemed to have
been granted.
4.
For the sake of clarity, the dates on which the
petitioners made the applications for permission and the
date on which the four months period expired and the
date on which the Deputy Commissioner intimated the
refusal of permission, are noted in the tabular column:
Writ
Petition
Numbers
Date of
application
Date on
which 120
days
expired
Date on which
Deputy
Commissioner
intimated the
refusal, if any
53053 and
53055/2020 31.01.2018
31.05.2018
10.09.2018
52129/2019 22.07.2017
19.11.2017 No rejection order
passed
3039/2020
18.08.2017
18.12.2017
Rejection order
dated 07.02.2018
but not
communicated
3100/2020
31.01.2018
30.04.2018
Rejection order
dated 05.09.2018
but not
communicated
3099/2019
22.07.2017
19.11.2017 No rejection order
passed
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends
that the Deputy Commissioner has been conferred with
8
the power to either grant or refuse permission to use the
lands which are assessed or held for the purpose of
agriculture to be diverted for any other purposes under
Section 95(2) of the Act. He states that the Deputy
Commissioner is obliged to either grant or refuse
permission within four months and if he does not
intimate his decision to the applicant, Section 95(5) of
the Act declares that the permission that had been
applied for is deemed to have been granted. It is his
contention
that
since,
admittedly,
the
Deputy
Commissioner did not intimate any decision that he took
regarding the permission sought within four months, the
permission that the petitioners had applied for, in the
eye of law, is deemed to have been granted.
6.
He submitted that the subsequent orders
passed, refusing the permission would have absolutely
no consequence and the same would have to be ignored.
He submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had lost all
jurisdiction to pass any order on the application of the
9
petitioners on the expiry of four months and any order
that he had passed after the expiry of four months was
void ab-initio.
7.
He submitted that the petitioners had also in
fact deposited a conversion fine and therefore, the
Deputy Commissioner needed to be directed to issue
formal orders granting permission as contemplated
under Section 95(5) of the Act.
8.
He also submitted that the contention of the
Planning Authority that the Deputy Commissioner was
bound to refuse permission if the purpose stated by the
petitioners was contrary to the purpose mentioned in the
Master Plan cannot be accepted. He submitted that a
reading of Section 95(2) of the Act would indicate that
the Deputy Commissioner
was required to grant
permission only if the purpose for which diversion is
sought is in conformity with the purpose earmarked in
the Master Plan.
10
9.
He
submitted
that
the
mere
granting
permission by the Deputy Commissioner under Section
95 of the Act would not ipso facto allow the applicants to
put the land to use for the purpose for which they had
applied. He submitted that, if as a matter of fact, the
purpose sought for diversion of the land was for a
purpose that was different from th
