UMESH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. D.J. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUMTA-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

TAHASILDAR, KUMTA-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

REVENUE INSPECTOR, KUMTA-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

SMT. SHANTI KOM RAMCHANDRA MADIVAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. VALGALLI, KUMTA-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8566 WP No. 105243 of 2024 HC-KAR

JANGA TULSU GOWDA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. KALKERI POST KUJALLI-581332, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R5; NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26-04-2024, BEARING LAND CONVERSION ID 651201 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.93/3 to an extent of 12 guntas 8 cents in Kalkeri village, Kujalli Hobli, Kumta taluk. The petitioner filed an application for conversion of land from agricultural to residential use to respondent No.2. The said application was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar. It is the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8566 WP No. 105243 of 2024 HC-KAR contention of the counsel for the petitoner that the report of the Tahasildar is without providing any opportunity to the petitioner and thereofre, the endorsement so issued by respondent No.2 on the basis of the report of respondent No.4 apart from being illegal and on facts also liable to be quashed on the ground of it being a non-speaking order. No reasons are assigned and in a mechanical manner, the impugned order is passed.

3. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while considering the application under Section 95(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), the Deputy Commissioner shall look into the first provisio to sub-section (i) of Section 95 of the Act and shall not refuse permission for diversion of land if the land is included in the Master Plan published under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and if the diversion sought is in accordance with the purpose of land use as specified in such plan. In the present case on hand, it is contended by the learned counsel that respondent No.2 has not considered all these aspects while - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8566 WP No. 105243 of 2024 HC-KAR passing the impugned order and has mechanically rejected the application on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahasildar. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 95(i) of the Act which reads as follows: "95. Uses of Agricultural land and the procedure for use of agricultural land for other purpose.:(i) The permission of the Deputy Commissioner shall not be required for diversion of for non-agricultural purposes, if such lands assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture, is as per the land use as specified in the Master Plan duly published, for the concerned land under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961(Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) Provided that, the prescribed fee under sub-section (7) shall be paid to the concerned Town Planning Authority at the time of obtaining requisite permissions from the Authority along with self declaration as may be prescribed.”

4. In view of the above, when an application is made by the petitioner seeking conversion of the land, it becomes the duty of the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2 to consider the same in accordance to the provisions of Section 95 of the Act which specifies the manner and the procedure to be adopted while considering such applications. Same has not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8566 WP No. 105243 of 2024 HC-KAR been done in the present case so also there is no speaking or reasoned order by respondent No.2. The said impugned order is merely on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar- respondent No.4. Therefore, for non-consideration of the provisions of Section 95(i) of the Act and for not passing a speaking order, the present petition deserves to be allowed.