Karnataka High Court
Hanmantappa S/O Balappa Sonte And ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 January, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.201752/2015 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. HANMANTAPPA S/O BALAPPA SONTE
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE MANIK NAGAR
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-585330
2. SANTOSH S/O LATE SHARNAPPA RAJGONDA
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE MANIK NAGAR
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-585330
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDINGS
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560009
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR-585 401
2
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HUMNABAD-585 330
4. THE COMMISSIONER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR-582330
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 09.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING IDENTICAL NUMBER
SAM:KAM/CON/CR-158/2014-15 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURES-R AND S RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
09.02.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 herein Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar, on the ground that the subject land
is situated within the municipal limits of Town Municipal
Council, Humnabad, and therefore, the impugned order
produced at Annexures-R and S dated 09.02.2015 is
non-est and liable to be rejected.
2. I have heard Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Viranagouda
Biradar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Gourish S. Khashampur,
learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 herein,
that the land in question has been unauthorisedly occupied
and construction has been made by the petitioners illegally
is not correct, since the land in question is situated within
the Town Municipal Council of Humnabad and the said
aspect of the matter is covered by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.
Muninarayana Swamy and Another vs. State of
Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Housing and
Urban Development and Others reported in 2013(1)
KCCR 634 (DB). He further contended that in view of
declaration of law by this Court stated supra, the
impugned Annexures-R and S are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State submits that since the
land has not been converted for the non-residential
purpose and therefore, even if sanction is granted for the
purpose of construction of land and the same cannot be
considered as the basis for conversion of land and
therefore, he sought to justify the impugned orders
produced at Annexures-R and S.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4
supports the contention raised by the learned Additional
Government Advocate and sought to justify the impugned
orders.
6. A perusal of the writ papers would clearly
indicate that the petitioners herein have purchased the
scheduled land by registered sale deed dated 24.02.1998
as per Annexure-A and dated 11.02.1998 as per
Annexure-E. Thereafter, respondent No.4, Town Municipal
Council has granted sanction for construction of the
building as per Annexure-G dated 18.02.1999 as well as
Annexure-B dated 16.11.2000. However, respondent No.2
herein has issued notice dated 10.12.2014 (Annexure-M)
stating that the land in question has been utilised for non-
residential purpose and the construction made in the said
land is contrary to Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964. In furtherance of the said notice, the
petitioners have made a representation dated 22.12.2014
(Annexure-P) stating that the construction in the said land
has been made pursuant to the licence/sanction accorded
by the Town Municipal Council, Humnabad and therefore,
the petitioners have given their replies as per Annexures-P
and Q dated 22.12.2014 and 19.12.2014. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further stated that there is no violation of
section 95 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The
Deputy Commissioner after considering the material on
record, by order dated 09.02.2015 stated that the
construction of the house in the schedule land is contrary
to the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and therefore
sanction accorded by the Municipal Council was rejected.
In the backdrop of these factual aspects of the case,
considering the law laid down in the case of M.
Muninarayana stated supra, this Court at paragraph No.3
of the judgment held as under:
"It is not in dispute that lands are
situated in Ward No.9 of Chikkaballapur Town
and when the property situated within the
Town Municipal Council area when Town
Municipal Council has collected development
charges from the appellants and granted plan
for construction of the compound and in the
planning area if it has lost the character of
agriculture, the Deputy Commissioner will not
get any right to cancel the Khata on the
ground that the appellants have not obtained
an order of conversion. Therefore, we are of
the opinion that there is no necessity for the
appellants to obtain conversion from
agriculture to non-agriculture, if the area
comes within the Town Municipal Council limits
and in the background of Town Municipal
Council collecting the developmental charges
and treated as Municipal property."
7. The Division Bench of this Court after
considering the material on record, held that there is no
necessity that the appellants therein to obtain an order of
conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural, if
the area comes within the purview of Town Municipal
Council limits. Following the law declared by the Division
Bench of this Court referred to above, I am of the view,
that the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 issued by the
respondent No.2 is contrary to law.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The orders
at Annexures-R and S issued by the respondent No.2 are
hereby set aside holding that the finding recorded by the
respondent No.2 that the petitioners are unauthorisedly
constructing the house in the agricultural land is non-est
and therefore, the writ petition is hereby allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
