Allabaksh vs The Assistant Commissioner

H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the first respondent in case No. LND/CR/126/2010-11 vide Annexure-''A'', report dated 24.7.2012 submitted by the second respondent to the third respondent vide Annexure-''B'' and order dated 2.6.2012 bearing No. LNA/CR-298/2010-11 and LNA/CR- 76/2011-12 passed by the third respondent vide Annexure-- ''C''.

By the impugned order at Annexure-''A'',. the first respondent has directed the second respondent to mention in column No. 11 of RTC that the lands mentioned in the annexure are kharab ''B'' lands and conversion is prohibited. Annexure-''B'' is the report submitted by the second respondent to the third respondent stating that re-survey No. 57 measuring in all 23 acres and 20 guntas is kharab ''B'' land. Annexure-''C'' is the direction issued by the third respondent to the second respondent to reconsider revenue records and take steps to set right the records and submit report.

Briefly stated the facts are;

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of Sy. No. 57/4B measuring 26 guntas situated at Attikola village, Dharwad taluk, having purchased the same through registered sale-deed dated 3.12.2010. The petitioner made application for conversion of the land for residential purpose before the third respondent. The third respondent called for the report from the second respondent. The second respondent submitted his report recommending for conversion. It is stated, the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority also has recommended for conversion. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 25,420/- towards the conversion charges. The petitioner has deposited the amount as per Annexure-''L''.

It is stated, the first respondent has passed an order as per Annexure-''A'' directing the revenue authorities to mention in the RTC that several lands in Dharwad including the land of the petitioner as kharab ''B'' land and there is prohibition of alienation. The said order is passed behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order at Annexure-''A'' cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that without any notice to the petitioner the impugned order at Annexure-''A'' has been passed. The petitioner has applied for conversion and the second respondent and the Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority have recommended for conversion. In view of the order at Annexure-''A'', the application for conversion has not been considered. Therefore, the third respondent may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for conversion.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the land of the petitioner is classified as kharab ''B'' land and therefore, conversion cannot be allowed. Vide Annexure-''C'', the third respondent has directed the second respondent to reconsider the revenue records and submit his report. No order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is,

Whether the impugned orders call for interference?

It is relevant to note, the petitioner claims that he is the owner of 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 57/4B having purchased it through registered sale-deed dated 3.12.2010. The petitioner has applied for conversion. The Tahsildar has submitted his report stating that the land in Sy. No. 57/4B is kharab ''B'' land. The third respondent has directed the second respondent to reconsider the revenue records and submit his report. No final order has been passed on the application filed by the petitioner for conversion. However, the petitioner has come to know that the second respondent has passed the order as per Annexure-''A'' classifying the land of the petitioner as kharab ''B'' land. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order. This Court in W.P. No. 67946/2011 has quashed the order at Annexure-''A'' in respect of the land in Sy. No. 78/3 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by giving opportunity to the petitioner. Before passing the impugned order at Annexure-''A'', no opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, it is appropriate to quash Annexure-''A'' insofar as the petitioner is concerned and direct the first respondent to reconsider the matter by giving opportunity to the petitioner to show whether the land of the petitioner is a kharab ''B'' land or not. Insofar as Annexures-''B'' and ''C'' are concerned, they are report of the second respondent and direction of the third respondent and no final order is passed. Unless the first respondent considers whether the land of the petitioner is kharab ''B'' land or not, the representation of the petitioner for conversion cannot be considered. It depends upon the order that is going to be passed by the first respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order passed by the first respondent vide Annexure-''A'' is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner''s land in Sy. No. 57/4B measuring 26 guntas is concerned. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter by giving opportunity to the petitioner. Depending upon the order that is going to be passed by the first respondent, the petitioner can pursue his application for conversion.