Hanamantappa S/O Ramappa Mundinamani vs The Deputy Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 12026 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Hanamantappa S/O Ramappa Mundinamani vs The Deputy Commissioner on 30 May, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                         -1-
                                                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200
                                                                   WP No. 102265 of 2024




                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                                  DHARWAD BENCH
                                       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
                                                       BEFORE
                                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.102265 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)
                            BETWEEN:

                            1.   HANAMANTAPPA S/O RAMAPPA MUNDINAMANI,
                                 AGE ABOUT: 66 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE,
                                 RESIDENT OF 2ND CROSS ROAD, SHAKTI NAGAR,
                                 DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD,
                                 PIN CODE-580008.

                            2.   HARISH S/O HANAMANTAPPA MUNDINAMANI,
                                 AGE ABOUT: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                                 RESIDENT OF 2ND CROSS ROAD, SHAKTI NAGAR,
                                 DHARWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD,
                                 PIN CODE-580008.
                                                                          ... PETITIONERS
                            (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE.)

                            AND:

                            1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                                 DHARWAD, DISTRICT DHARWAD,
BHARATHI                         PIN CODE-580004.
HM
Digitally signed by
                            2.   THE TAHASILDAR,
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
                                 DHARWAD, DISTRICT DHARWAD,
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.05 15:32:06
+0530
                                 PIN CODE-580001.
                                                                          ... RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP.)

                                 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                            OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
                                 I)    QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED:
                            23/03/2024, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE
                            RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESPECT AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING
                            SURVEY NUMBER 52/19 MEASURING 00.02 GUNTAS .02 ANNES
                            SITUATED AT HATTIKOLLA TQ: DHARWAD DISTRICT; DHARWAD.
                                -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200
                                       WP No. 102265 of 2024




     II)   ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 TO ISSUE THE CONVERSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE LAND
OF THE PETITIONERS AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SURVEY
NUMBER 52/19 MEASURING 00.02 GUNTES 0.02 ANNES SITUATED
AT HATTIKOLLA TQ: DHARWAD DISTRICT: DHARWAD AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for

respondents No.1 and 2.

3. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking to

quash the endorsement dated 23.03.2024 passed by

respondent No.1 at Annexure-E in respect of agricultural land

bearing Sy.No.52/19 measuring 02 guntas 02 annas situated

at Hattikolla, in Dharwad taluk and district. It has also

sought for the relief of mandamus for a direction to

respondent No.1 to issue conversion order in respect of land

of the petitioners' agricultural land mentioned hereinabove.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the

owners of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.52/19 measuring

02 guntas 02 annas situated at Hattikolla, taluk and district

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

Dharwad, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated

24.05.2018 pursuant to which the name of the petitioners is

entered in the record of rights and the same is produced

along with this writ petition. After acquiring the property by

way of a registered sale deed, the petitioners wanted to

convert the land from agricultural to non agricultural status

in order to use it for residential purpose. Therefore, they filed

an affidavit dated 22.03.2022 before the concerned

authority, based on which respondent No.2 conducted detail

enquiry, submitted a report to respondent No.1 Deputy

Commissioner and recommended for conversion of the land

to non agricultural purpose i.e., residential purpose. It is

further contention of the petitioners that apart from the

recommendation made by respondent No.1, the Hubballi

Dharwad Urban Development Authority also recommended to

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

purpose, which document is also produced as Annexure-D.

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

by the petitioners for conversion of land ought to have been

appreciated and converted by respondent No.1, but on the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

contrary respondent No.1 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends

that the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.54/12 measuring 04

guntas 08 annas situated in the same village belonging to

another third party adjoining the land of the petitioners came

to be converted for residential purpose. When such being the

case, there is no reason for respondent No.1 to refuse to

convert the land of the petitioners to non agricultural

purpose i.e., residential purpose. The said document of

conversion of land of the third party neighbour is also

produced along with this petition as Annexure-F.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners 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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

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 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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

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 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.

8. 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 petitioners are the absolute owners of the property in

question so also not in dispute that the property is coming

within the Hubballi Dharwad Urban Development Authority.

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

within the Municipal Corporation limits, the question of

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

seeking for conversion from agricultural to non agricultural

purpose would not be required as it would be redundant.

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 petitioners and

that the property falls within the limits of Hubballi Dharwad

Municipal Corporation, the endorsement issued by the

Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E does not confirm 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 endorsement dated 23.03.2024 issued by the

respondent No.1 vide Annexure-E in respect of agricultural

land bearing Sy.No.52/19 measuring 02 guntas 02 annas

situated at Hattikolla, Dharwad, is hereby quashed.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7200

iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.1

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

petitioners 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