IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
Jyoti M, J
DEEPAK S/O K GURURAJ ACHAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP No. 103620 of 2016 | WRIT PETITION NO. 103620 OF 2016 (KLR-CON)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for land conversion pending since 2007. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding statutory timeline for decision and alternate remedy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory provision for deemed conversion under the karnataka land revenue act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. entitlement to deemed conversion due to administrative failure to decide within four months. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., counsel for the petitioner and AGA for respondents-State have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
It is stated that petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.43/B (New No.43/2/7) to an extent of 10 guntas (0.20 cents) situated at Virpapuragaddi village, Sanapur Post, Bangavathi taluk. It is stated that, he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal for conversion of his land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 11.05.2007. The petitioner's grievance is that his application has not been considered as of today. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
4. Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath., counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider the application within four months from the date of receipt of the application. He argued by saying that in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has not taken any decision regarding the application within the prescribed time.
5. By way of reply to this contention, AGA justified the action of the Deputy Commissioner. She argued by saying that there is an alternate remedy. She submits that as the petition is devoid of merits, it may be dismissed.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
7. The issue revolves around the application submitted by the petitioner for conversion of the land. It is not in dispute that the petitioner moved an application for conversion of land on 11.05.2007.
8. Section 95 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides for the presentation of an application for permission for diversion and sub-Sec.(5) of Sec.95 reads as under:
“Whether the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-sec(2) within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted.”
9. In the present case also, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to inform the petitioner within the prescribed time. Therefore, the petitioner is held to be entitled to the benefit of deemed conversion in respect of the subject land.
10. The authority concerned is directed to effect the conversion and issue conversion certificate in favour of the petitioner after the receipt of necessary charges for such conversion in accordance with the law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.