2. Heard Sri. Praveen S., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
4. The petitioner then files an application seeking
major repairs. The application was not considered.
4. Accordingly, it is expedient to dispose of
the petition by directing respondent No.1 to consider
the petitioner's application dated 07.08.2023, as per
Annexure-'B', and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with the law within 15 days from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
The result of the direction that is rendered in the
aforesaid order by the Co-ordinate Bench is the impugned order
rejecting the application of the petitioner. The rejection of the
application of the petitioner is not on the strength of any
violation under the Arms Act, 1959, but on the score that the
building or the shop in which the petitioner is wanting to setup
his business is not converted to commercial purpose and still in
the agricultural stage.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
take this Court through the judgment rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench on identical circumstances to buttress his
submission the entire issue stands covered by the order passed
by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated
03.01.2024.
6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to notice the
order passed by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023,
which reads as follows:
"5. The property having lost its agricultural character,
coming within the jurisdiction of the TMC, there is no
requirement for the petitioner to once again apply for and
get conversion changed from non-agricultural commercial
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
(Petrol Bunk) purposes to non-agricultural commercial
purposes only.
6. On that basis, he submits that the endorsement at
Annexure-G, which has been issued is contrary to the
applicable law and in that regard he relies on the decision
of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.105734/2016 (Kirloskar Electrical Co.Pvt.Ltd.,
v. State of Karnataka, Urban Development
Department) dated 21.02.2018, which on appeal has
been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.100124/2018 (Hubli-Dharwad Urban
Development Authority, Navanagar v. The State of
Karnataka and another) vide judgment dated
22.10.2018.
7. His submission is that once the land comes within the
urban agglomeration or within the municipal limits,
section 95 to 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 (for short "KLR Act") are not applicable and in this
case, the land already having been converted from
agricultural to commercial albeit for petrol bunk
purposes, the land has lost agricultural character and as
such, now the TMC cannot insist on restricting the usage
of land for petrol pump purposes only and ought to have
permitted the petitioner for using it for commercial
purposes. On these grounds, he submits that the writ
petition is required to be allowed and the reliefs sought
for be granted.
8. Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that the
conversion order being restricted to non-agricultural
commercial (petrol bunk) purposes, the TMC is bound to
implement the conversion order to such restricted
purposes and commercial purpose cannot be permitted
and as such he supports the impugned endorsement,
which is challenged in this case.
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
9. Heard Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned
counsel appearing for respondent and perused the
papers.
10. The points that would arise for consideration are as
under:
10.1. 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-agricultural
purposes?
10.2. Whether in the present case, the land
having already been converted for non-
agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose
and the land coming within the jurisdiction of
TMC, could the TMC restrict the usage of the
property for petrol bunk purposes only
disregarding the conversion for non-
agricultural commercial purposes?
10.3. What order?
11. I answer the above points 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
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
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-agricultural
purposes?
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 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
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
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.
13. Answer to Point No.2: Whether in the present
case, the land having already been converted for
non- agricultural commercial (petrol bunk) purpose
and the land coming within the jurisdiction of TMC,
could the TMC restrict the usage of the property for
petrol bunk purposes only disregarding the
conversion for non-agricultural commercial
purposes?
13.1. Irrespective of my answer to point No.1, in the
present case, the land of the petitioner has already
been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural
commercial (petrol bunk) purposes vide official
memorandum issued by Deputy Commissioner
dated 31.03.2016 i.e. the land was converted for
non-agricultural purposes before it came within the
TMC limits by following the due procedure under Section
95 of the KLR Act. Thus, the said land has
not been assessed to tax as an agricultural land but
has now been assessed to tax on the basis of the
Municipal number allotted to the said property by
the TMC.
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
13.2. The artificial distinction that the TMC wishes to draw
between a land converted for non-agricultural
commercial (petrol bunk) purpose and a land
converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose
is not sustainable and is an effort or an exercise in
futility inasmuch as it is very clear from the official
memorandum itself that the land has been
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural
purpose albeit for petrol bunk.
13.3. What is important to be considered is the
conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural
purposes and not what has been stated in bracket
as "petrol bunk" for the TMC to contend that the
usage of land is restricted to petrol bunk purpose.
Furthermore, the petitioner has already established a
petrol bunk in an extent measuring 14,436.30 sq.
ft., the land measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, the
balance land is proposed to be used by the
petitioner for commercial purposes.
13.4. Thus, in my considered opinion, the TMC cannot put
the cart before the horse and restrict the usage of
land only for petrol bunk purpose after the petrol
bunk has already been established. On this ground
also, the endorsement issued by the TMC falls foul
of the applicable law.
13.5. As such, I answer point No.2 by holding that the
TMC cannot seek to restrict the usage of land of the
petitioner to only petrol bunk when the land has
been converted for non-agricultural commercial
purpose.
14. Answer to point No.3: In view of my answer to
points 1 and 2 above, I pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated
13.10.2012 issued by respondent No.4-TMC,
Bailhongal vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.
iii) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to
consider the conversion order already issued taking
into consideration the land coming within the
jurisdiction of the TMC and issue such building
licence as eligible by following the building bye-laws
applicable to the said property within a period of
sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly."
The Dharwad Bench in the afore-extracted judgment
holds that once agricultural land comes within the jurisdiction of
Municipal Council or Municipal Corporation, the procedure
prescribed under Sections 95 and 96 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964, would become applicable and the land
would be deemed to be converted, is the finding rendered by
the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023.
7. In the light of the finding rendered by the
Co-ordinate Bench, the issue in the lis need to detain this Court
for long or delve further deep into the matter despite the
vehement opposition of the learned HCGP contending that the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:9696
said order has been tossed before the Division Bench at
Dharwad and it is an admitted fact that no order of stay is
granted.
8. In that light, I deem it appropriate to follow suit as
is done by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated
03.01.2024.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order bearing No.HD 249 KAA 2023
dated 25.09.2024, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
SJK
CT: BHK
