AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S.Dixit, J
The essential grievance of the petitioner, regardless of the text of prayer in its pleadings is as to the subject land not being treated as deemed to have been converted to non-agricultural user by operation of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the agricultural land is bought with prior permission as provided under section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, there is no need for once again converting it with the orders of any authority. In support of his contention, he banks upon section 95(8) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The counsel submits that whatever fine or fees lawfully payable shall be paid by his client on intimation.
Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents opposes the petition contending that even a deemed conversion as argued by the petitioner also requires some formal order to that effect; for issuance of such an order there are some formalities which the land owner has to satisfy. What are those formalities should be ascertained by him at the jurisdictional office itself. Without undertaking that exercise, petitioner has rushed to the Writ Court unjustifiably. So contending he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence as under and for the following reasons:
(a) Petitioner having duly applied has been granted the permission vide order dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure C) as provided under section 109 of the 1961 Act. Thereafter, he bought the subject lands by two registered sale deeds evenly dated 01.06.2015 (Annexures D & E) which mention about the said permission. Even the entries in the record of rights have been duly mutated. Petitioner has also made a formal application to the Deputy Commissioner both physical and online respectively on 13.03.2017 & 31.03.2017. In fact petitioners claim was recommended by the jurisdictional Tashildar vide letter dated 20.12.2017. He offered to pay all and whatever lawful charges leviable towards processing of the same.
(b) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that his client is an industrial entrepreneur engaged inter alia in solid waste management, production of organic manure, liquid fuel and biomass pellets from the said waste, and that it holds the permissions granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board that are valid until 31.12.2026. It also possesses project approval records granted by the Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Karnataka, followed by another approval issued by District Level Single Window Clearance Committee in its meeting held on 26.11.2014. Despite all this, not even a leaf has been turned by the official respondents in processing the claim of the petitioner.
(c) Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in banking upon Section 95(8) of the 1964 Act inserted by way of Amendment vide Act No. 27 of 2014 w.e.f 28.08.2014, specifically provides for deemed permission for diversion of agricultural land inter alia for industrial purposes, once such land is bought with the prior permission as provided under section 109 of the 1961 Act. It is always open to the legislature to deem certain things as a matter of policy and the deeming provisions have to be given full effect. It is ununderstandable as to what more was to be done by the petitioner after applying for the issuance of a formal order, that too, after specifically offering to pay all lawful charges therefor.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds. The subject is deemed to have been converted to non-agricultural user, the Respondent Deputy Commissioner shall levy and collect from the petitioner all lawful charges/fines towards such conversion by raising a demand within four weeks. The Petitioner shall pay all lawful levies within eight weeks of such a demand being raised. The Deputy Commissioner shall report compliance of this mandate to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months reckoned from this day. Delay shall be viewed seriously, if a memo in that regard is moved.
Costs made easy.