Noorahamed S/O Ameensab Hanageri vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2790 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

          W.P.NO.147844/2020 (GM-WAKF)

BETWEEN:
 NOORAHAMED S/O AMEENSAB HANAGERI,
AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRI,
R/O : KUKNOOR VILLAGE, TALUK: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL.
                                              ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SADIQ N.GOODWALA ADV.)

AND:
1.  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY ITS PRINCIPAL
    SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

4.   THE TAHASILDAR, KUKNOOR,
     TALUK : YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

5.   DISTRICT WAKF OFFICER,
     KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.K.BASAVARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R4.)
(BY SRI MOHAMMED ALI, ADV. FOR R.5)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS COURT TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.08.2020 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.REVENUE/NA/2012/41/E-49098/2089
VIDE ANNEUXRE-G.
                                   2




      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            : ORDER :

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the

order dated 11/18.08.2020 passed by the 2nd

respondent-Deputy Commissioner canceling the

conversion order granted on 16.03.2015 wrongly show

in the Annexure-G as 18.03.2020 under Section 95 of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ("the Act" for

short).

2. The case of the petitioner is that the land

bearing Sy.No.54/8 totally measuring 8 acres situated in

Kukanoor village in Yelburga Taluk of Koppal District was

granted in favour of the petitioner by the Land Tribunal

by order dated 12.07.1979.

3. The petitioner has filed an application under

Section 95 of the Act for conversion of the land from

agriculture to non agriculture purpose. The Deputy

Commissioner by order dated 16.03.2015 granted

conversion. Thereafter, the 5th respondent has given a

complaint to the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner

vide Annexure-D stating that, the petition property is

belonging to the Wakf. The 2nd respondent-Deputy

Commissioner on the basis of the said complaint passed

the order on 11/18.08.2020 canceling the conversion

order dated 16.03.2015. Being aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Sri Sadiq N.Goodwala, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner has contended that the

Deputy Commissioner had no power to cancel the order

of conversion and secondly the impugned order is

passed without hearing the petitioner. He has relied on

the judgment of this Court passed in

W.P.No.45634/2013, wherein this Court has held that,

the Deputy Commissioner has no power to cancel the

conversion order and has quashed cancellation of the

conversion order.

5. Per contra, Sri Mohammed Ali, learned

counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has contended

that, the order of conversion was obtained by

misrepresentation and hence the application was made

to the very authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner to

recall the order of conversion. He further contended that

as per the condition No.10, the conversion order will be

in force only two years from the date of that order. Since

he has not construct any residential house, the Deputy

Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order.

Therefore, the impugned order is legal and proper.

6. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the

conversion order on 16.03.2015 under Section 95 of the

Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the aggrieved person

has a remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Act. The

5th respondent instead of availing the remedy, has

approached the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of

conversion order. Nowhere in the Act, there is a

provision for the cancellation of the conversion order.

Once the order is passed under Section 95 of the Act,

the authority becomes Functus-Officio. There can be no

review of the administrative action, unless specifically

provided in the Statute. This is unlike the case of

exercising quasi-judicial or judicial power wherein power

of the review may be provided under the Statute explicit

or could be read as part of the inherent power of such

authority. The impugned order is passed on the basis of

the complaint given by the 5th respondent. It is

specifically stated that by misrepresentation, they have

obtained the conversion order. In the impugned order

nowhere it is stated that, since condition No.10 has not

been complied, the conversion order has been cancelled.

On the other hand, the impugned order is passed on the

complaint of the 5th respondent stating that, by

misrepresentation the petitioner has obtained the

conversion order. Therefore, the impugned order passed

by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner canceling

the conversion order dated 16.03.2015 is without

authority of law, which is liable to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 11/18.08.2020 passed by the 2nd

respondent Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G is

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM