Smt Vidya W/O Mahesh Jadav vs Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 12180 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Vidya W/O Mahesh Jadav vs Deputy Commissioner on 3 June, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                         -1-
                                                                 NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357
                                                                  WP No. 101966 of 2024




                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                                 DHARWAD BENCH

                                      DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                                      BEFORE

                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.101966 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)

                            BETWEEN:

                            SMT. VIDYA W/O MAHESH JADAV,
                            AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                            R/O: 9TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY,
                            DHARWAD-580008.
                                                                           ... PETITIONER
                            (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:

                            DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                            DHARWAD DISTRICT,
                            DHARWAD-580001.
                                                                          ... RESPONDENT
                            (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

YASHAVANT                        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
NARAYANKAR
                            OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.06 11:55:14
+0530
                                 I)   ISSUE A WRIT, OR ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE
                            NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12-01-2024
                            PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN FILE NO.LNA/VAHI-
                            292+294/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

                                 II)  ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
                            NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
                            TO ISSUE CONVERSION ORDERS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
                            BEARING SY.NO.84/*/12 MEASURING 01 GUNTA-12-00 ANNAS
                            SITUATED AT LAKAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, DHARWAD HOBLI,
                            DHARWAD TALUKA, DHARWAD DISTRICT AND ETC.,.

                                THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
                            GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357
                                        WP No. 101966 of 2024




                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the respondent.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash

the endorsement dated 12.01.2024 passed by respondent at

Annexure-C in respect of agricultural land bearing

Sy.No.84/*/12 measuring 01 gunta 12 annas situated at

Lakamanahalli village, in Dharwad taluk and district. It has

also sought for the relief of mandamus for a direction to the

respondent to issue conversion order in respect of the

petitioner's agricultural land mentioned hereinabove.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the

owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.84/*/12 measuring

01 gunta 12 annas situated at Lakamanahalli village, taluk

and district Dharwad, by virtue of a partition. Pursuant to

which the name of the petitioner is entered in the record of

rights and the same is produced along with this writ petition.

After acquiring the property by way of partition, the

petitioner wanted to convert the land from agricultural to

non agricultural status in order to use it for residential

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357

purpose. Therefore, she filed an application dated

17.12.2020 before the concerned authority, based on which

the Tahasildar, Dharwad conducted detail enquiry, submitted

a report to respondent Deputy Commissioner and

recommended for conversion of the land to non agricultural

purpose i.e., residential purpose. It is further contention of

the petitioner that apart from the recommendation made by

the Tahasildar, Dharwad, the Hubballi Dharwad Urban

Development Authority also gave 'no objection certificate' to

convert the land into non agricultural purpose i.e., residential

purpose.

4. This being the state of affairs, the application filed

by the petitioner for conversion of land ought to have been

appreciated and converted by respondent, but on the

contrary respondent failed to consider the application and

without assigning any good, cogent, proper reasons rejected

the same simply on the ground that the property is lesser in

measurement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends

that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.84/*/12 measuring

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357

01 gunta 12 annas is situated in the same village belonging

to another third party adjoining the land of the petitioner

came to be converted for residential purpose. When such

being the case, there is no reason for the respondent to

convert the land of the petitioner to non agricultural purpose

i.e., residential purpose.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court reported in

2024(1) KCCR 769, wherein in similar situation conversion of

land falling within the limits of Urban Development

Corporation has been permitted to be converted. It is

relevant to extract paragraph No.12 of the said judgment as

under:

12. Answer to point No.1: Whether the agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or would the said land be deemed to be converted for non-agriculturalpurposes?

12.1. This issue is no longer res-integra.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2018 in W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357

Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development Department) has categorically came to a conclusion that once the land comes within the City Municipal Council area, conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose is not required and in this regard reference was made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to an earlier decision of this Court in M.Muninarayana Swamy and another v. State of Karnataka and in the case of Sri.S.Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka and others.

12.2. In S.Krishnappa's case, this Court had categorically came to a conclusion that the provision of the KLR Act have no application to the lands that fall within the territorial limits of Brihut Benagaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP).

12.3. BBMP being a Municipal Corporation under the KMC Act, 1976, a TMC occupies similar position as a Corporation and as such, the very same principle would apply to even a TMC. Hence, the provision of KLR Act would have no application to the lands falling within the territorial limits of a TMC.

12.4. In that view of the matter, there would be no requirement for a land owner of the land coming within the limits of TMC to seek conversion of the land under Section 95 of the KLR Act from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes once the land comes within the limits of TMC.

12.5. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that agricultural land coming within the jurisdiction of a Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation within the meaning and ambit of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, would

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357

not require to be converted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 95 and 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, section 95 to 97 thereof not being applicable to such land the said land would be deemed to be converted for non-agricultural purposes.

7. Paragraph No.12.5 is more relevant to the case

on hand. In the present case on hand it is not in dispute that

the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in

question so also not in dispute that the property is coming

within the limits of Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation.

Hence, when such being the case, when the property falls

within the Municipal Corporation limits, the question of

seeking for conversion from agricultural to non agricultural

purpose would not be required. Hence, such land once it falls

within the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation limits,

would be deemed to be converted to non agricultural

purpose. Therefore, in view of the points discussed

hereinabove, when there is no dispute with regard to the

property belonging to the petitioner coming within the limits

of Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation, the order passed

by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-C does not

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7357

conform to the rules and regulations of the Act. Therefore,

the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the

respondent vide Annexure-C in respect of agricultural land

bearing Sy.No.84/*/12 measuring 01 gunta 12 annas

situated at Lakamanahalli village, Dharwad taluk and district,

is hereby quashed.

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent

to issue the order of conversion of the land belonging to the

petitioner from agricultural to non agricultural residential

purpose as it amounts to deemed conversion. It shall be

complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MRK CT:BCK