Shivarudraiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 2365 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shivarudraiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:1553
                                                         WP No. 33799 of 2024




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 33799 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SHIVARUDRAIAH
                            S/O MAHADEVAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

                      2.    MAHESH .M
                            S/O MAHADEVAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

                      3.    CHANDRASHEKAR
                            S/O MAHADEVAIAH
                            AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

                            ALL ARE RESIDING AT
                            MALLAYANAPURA VILLAGE
                            UTTUVALLI POST
                            CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH        (BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE .K.B, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                            DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT
                            M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

                      2.    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                            CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
                            CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
                              -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:1553
                                          WP No. 33799 of 2024




3.   THE TAHASILDAR
     CHAMARAJANAGAR
     CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 14.05.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A,    QUASH    THE   RECOMMENDATION    DATED
3.04.2024 PASSED BY THE R-3 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        ORAL ORDER

1. Captioned petition is filed assailing the order

dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per

Annexure-A thereby rejecting the application seeking

conversion of the granted land on the report submitted by

the jurisdictional Tahsildar indicating that the conversion

order would violate the mandate provided under the

provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe(Prohibition of Transfer of certain

lands)Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act"). Consequently, the

recommendation dated 3.4.2024 made by respondent

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

No.3 as per Annexure-B is also challenged. Further,

petitioner has sought for issuance of a mandamus to direct

respondent No.2 to pass a conversion order pursuant to

the application dated 23.3.2023 as per Section 95(2) of

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

Act").

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned AGA appearing for respondents.

3. Two core issues arise for consideration in the case

on hand in the light of the provisions of Section 4(2) of the

PTCL Act and the judgment rendered by this Court in

W.P.No.23074/2024 DD on 26.9.2024 placing reliance on

the Full Bench decision in W.P.No.60483/2016 and the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur .vs. Ratan

Melting and Wire Industries 1.

(2008) 13 SCC 1

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

4. Firstly, the order under challenge is not

sustainable since petitioner has secured permission from

respondent No.1/State under Section 14-A of the Town

and Country Planning Act( for short "the Act"). Once a

permission is granted by the competent authority under

Section 14-A of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner

overlooking the permission granted could not have passed

the order under challenge.

5. Secondly this Court has extensively dealt with the

provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the

relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the

unreported judgment at paragraphs 7 to 11, which reads

as under:

"7. Upon careful examination of the impugned Circular, which has been brought before this Court for judicial scrutiny, it becomes evident that the additional restriction imposed requiring prior Government sanction for the conversion of land granted under the PTCL Act runs contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Section 95(2) clearly lays out the process for converting agricultural land to non-

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

agricultural purposes. The Full Bench of this Court In W.P.No.60483/2016, unequivocally held that if a statute prescribes a particular mode for performing a specific act, that act must be executed in the manner set out in the statute, and no additional steps or restrictions can be imposed that are not expressly provided for.

8. The Full Bench, while addressing the interplay between Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, emphasized that the two provisions operate in distinct legal fields and pursue different objectives. The Court noted that Section 95(2) governs the procedure for converting agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, while Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act pertains to restrictions on the transfer of granted lands, which are lands allotted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the Government. Importantly, the Full Bench clarified that there is no reference to Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act within Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, signalling that the two statutes do not overlap in their application.

9. In the case at hand, the Circular in question Introduced an additional requirement that holders granted land must obtain prior Government sanction before applying for conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. This additional condition, as argued, is not found within the statutory framework of Section 95(2) and, as such, cannot be validly imposed. This Court, relying on a well-established legal principle articulated in Nazir Ahmed

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

vs. King Emperor was of the view that when a law prescribes a specific method for carrying out an act, any deviation from that method is impermissible. This principle was reinforced in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Pearl Mechanical Engineering and Foundry Works Pvt.³ and other subsequent cases, all asserting that statutory provisions must be strictly adhered to without unauthorized additions or deviations.

10. The Full Bench also addressed the broader issue of whether an order of conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act could satisfy the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, specifically in relation to obtaining prior permission for transferring granted land. The Court concluded that once the land is converted under Section 95(2), it ceases to be "granted land" within the meaning of the PTCL Act. Thus, the requirement to obtain prior Government approval under Section 4(2) does not arise in the case of land that has been converted.

11. This judicial interpretation strongly supports the contention that the Circular, by imposing an additional condition that is not rooted in the statutory language of Section 95, is legally unsustainable. This Court has consistently held that administrative actions must conform strictly to the governing Statute, and any attempt to impose additional requirements outside of the Statute constitutes an overreach of authority. Therefore, the Circular imposing the condition of prior sanction for

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

conversion is found to be in direct conflict with Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act."

6. In light of the law laid down in the aforementioned

judgments, it is evident that the impugned order passed

by the Deputy Commissioner declining conversion on the

premise that the land in question is granted to individuals

belonging to the depressed class and that such conversion

would contravene the provisions of the PTCL Act is legally

untenable. Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964, provides the statutory mechanism for

conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural

purposes upon the fulfillment of prescribed conditions. This

section empowers the Deputy Commissioner to grant such

conversion, provided that the applicant complies with all

stipulated requirements and furnishes satisfactory

evidence supporting the proposed land use. The provision

underscores the administrative responsibility of the Deputy

Commissioner to assess the merits of an application based

on the rules framed under the Act, without arbitrary

rejection or reliance on extraneous factors.

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

7. Furthermore, the Act delineates a clear process to

ensure that the proposed conversion aligns with public

policy, planning regulations, and other applicable legal

norms. The requirement of obtaining prior permission from

the Government under Section 14-A of the Town and

Country Planning Act was duly fulfilled in this case. Once

such permission is granted by the competent authority,

the Deputy Commissioner is statutorily obligated to

consider the application under Section 95(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act independently, without

disregarding the permission already accorded under the

Town and Country Planning Act.

8. In this context, the Deputy Commissioner's rejection

of the application on the ground that the land was granted

to a depressed class and thereby invoking the provisions

of the PTCL Act is inconsistent with the statutory

framework. As clarified in the Full Bench decision supra

and followed in subsequent rulings, Section 95(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act does not empower the

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

Deputy Commissioner to apply the provisions of the PTCL

Act as a basis for rejecting a conversion application. The

two statutes operate in distinct legal realms, and the

Deputy Commissioner must adhere strictly to the mandate

of Section 95(2) while adjudicating conversion requests.

Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the

application and the recommendation made by the

Tahsildar are both unsustainable in law and liable to be set

aside.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The recommendation dated 3.4.2024 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B and the order dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A are hereby quashed.

(iii) Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on an application dated 23.03.2023 strictly aligning to the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1553

mandate provided under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

ALB