Karnataka High Court
Ammanamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
WP No. 33797 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. 33797 OF 2024 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. AMMANAMMA
W/O LATE MANIYAAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT MALLAYANAPURA VILLAGE
UTTUVALLI POST
CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SHIVARUDRAIAH
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE .K.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: High DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Court of M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
Karnataka
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
CHAMARAJANAGAR
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
WP No. 33797 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 29.05.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE RECOMMENDATION DATED
03.04.2024 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 29.05.2024 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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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.
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
(2008) 13 SCC 1
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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-
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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.
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
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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
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
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
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 29.05.2024 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
mandate provided under Section 95(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1554
(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
