Y. BHASKAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the deputy commissioner of kodagu district assailing the judgment of the learned single judge. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent applied for conversion of land in s. No. 42-a in block No. 17 of madikeri town municipal council and to make necessary changes in the revenue records as well as the municipal records. On 21-6-1991 before the first appellant herein, it was transferred to second respondent for consideration. The respondent filed an application on 21-6-1991 for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use by affixing Rs. 2/- stamp. On 3-7-1991 the application was forwarded to the revenue inspector for recovering the remaining stamp duty. The records show that by 21-10-1991 the respondent had not paid the deficit stamp duty and he paid the stamp duty afterwards. On 17-1-1992 the respondent was examined. The respondent filed a statement wherein he stated that he will file the required documents at the relevant time. On 12-2-1992 the tahsildar issued a notice directing the respondent to produce the jamabhandhi record and an affidavit stating that there are no tenants on the land and there are no takavi loans on the land and also to file his statement. There is no dispute that all the above said documents were not filed by the respondent. Therefore, the authority rejected his application, vide Order dated 9-11-1993. Assailing the said Order, the present writ petition is filed. ( 2 ) THE learned single judge allowed the application on the ground that if permission is not granted within four months from the date of the application, after lapse of four months, deeming provision under Section 95 (5) of the Karnataka land revenue ACT (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the act' for short) will come into play and permission is deemed to be granted, and allowed the writ petition. Against that Order, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-authorities in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deeming provision under Section 95 (5) of the ACT comes into play only where the application is in Order and where all the required documents for the grant of conversion are attached to it. Otherwise the application is deemed not in order. In other words, it cannot be treated as an application under Section 95 (2) of the act. Otherwise the application is deemed not in order. In other words, it cannot be treated as an application under Section 95 (2) of the act. Once the application is not in Order, there is no obligation on the authority to grant the permission and they can reject the application as the application is not in order. The learned single judge erred in holding that the deeming Section 95 (5) comes into play and deemed permission is granted in the case for the non-action of the officials as per the provisions under Section 95 (5) of the act. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that Section 95 of the ACT contemplates only filing an application. Neither there is any provision nor rule contemplating filing of any documents. Once there is no such provision there is no requirement for filing of any documents except filing an application. Once an application is filed, even if it is not in Order, after lapse of four months, permission is deemed to be granted as per Section 95 (5) of the ACT and therefore the learned single judge was correct in allowing the writ petition. ( 5 ) IN view of the above contentions, the important point in law that arise for consideration is whether application without required documents confirming the title of the applicant and other requirements, is deemed to be a proper application under Section 95 (2) of the act. ( 6 ) SECTION 95 provides such procedure for conversion of the agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Sub-section (2) deals with filing of an application. It is relevant to extract sub-section (2) which is as follows. ( 7 ) BY reading the above sub-section it is seen, that where the occupant of an agricultural land wishes to divert such part thereof to any other purpose, he has to obtain the permission of the deputy commissioner and the deputy commissioner may, subject to provisions of sections and rules made under the act, grant permission on condition or refuse permission. Where the land is already included in development plan or comprehensive development plan under the Karnataka town and country planning ACT and if such diversion is in accordance with the purpose of such plan, the deputy commissioner shall not refuse the permission. Where the land is already included in development plan or comprehensive development plan under the Karnataka town and country planning ACT and if such diversion is in accordance with the purpose of such plan, the deputy commissioner shall not refuse the permission. Thus, it is evident that the applicant must be an occupant of the land. 'occupant' here denotes the owner of the land and the mere statement in the application that he is the holder is not sufficient. Without satisfying that he is the owner of the land, if the permission has to be granted, chaos will arise as there will be rivalry applications. Therefore, by reading the Section itself, only the 'occupant', that is, the 'owner' is entitled to file an application. Along with the application, the applicant has to file his sale deed or the revenue record showing that he is the owner of the land. By reading sub-section (2) it has to be interpreted that the obligation of the authority is to grant permission only to the owner after satisfying that the applicant is the owner of the land. It is also to be noticed, by promulgation of the land reforms act, the tenants are given permanent rights on the land. In some cases the tenants have acquired the ownership by virtue of the statutory provisions. Therefore, there is also requirement that they shall produce a certificate or affidavit stating that there is no tenant on the land, because, the granting of conversion certificate will not take away the rights of the tenant. The tenancy rights are permanent rights under the act. Similarly, the appellant has to satisfy that there are no dues of land revenue or no loans to the government, before conversion, because, without paying those dues or loans if he sells away the land, it is difficult for the authorities to recover the said amount. Though there is no specific provision contemplating filing of those documents, it has to be read into the Section to safeguard the interest of the applicants who are coming for the conversion vis-a-vis tenants and the government dues. Therefore there is an obligation on the applicant to file his title deeds i. e. ,on filing such an application and documents, the concerned authority should consider the records and ascertain that there is no tenant on the land and then only proceed with the application. Therefore there is an obligation on the applicant to file his title deeds i. e. ,on filing such an application and documents, the concerned authority should consider the records and ascertain that there is no tenant on the land and then only proceed with the application. Further, there is a requirement of filing of non-encumbrance certificate from the revenue authorities showing that there is no recovery of loans on the land. If those documents are filed, the authority has to consider the same and after satisfying, has to grant permission. In case all the above said required documents are filed and if they are in Order, if still the authority has not considered the same within the stipulated time from the date of filing of such documents, the permission is deemed to be granted by operation of Section 95 (5) of the act. Otherwise the deemed provision will not apply. In the present case, there is no dispute that until 21-10-1991 the respondent has not paid the deficit court fee as per the requisites which we perused. He filed a statement on 17-1-1992 and a notice was issued to him on 12-2-1992 directing to produce the documents. Though he filed some of the documents, he has not filed all the documents. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner is a valid application as contemplated under Section 95 (2) of the act. Therefore, the deeming provision under Section 95 (5) will not apply in the present case. Accordingly, the Order of the learned single judge is set aside. ( 8 ) THE respondent's application is pending since 1991. We do not think it is proper to direct to file a fresh application. We direct the respondent to file photostat copy of registered sale deed in his favour and affidavit stating that there is no tenant on the land and there is no takavi loan or co-operative loan on the land and also an encumbrance certificate. If they have already been filed, then there is no requirement of filing of the same again. If the above said documents are not yet filed, the petitioner is directed to file the same within two months' time. On filing such documents, the appellant-authorities are directed to consider the same within a period of two months thereafter and pass an order. If the above said documents are not yet filed, the petitioner is directed to file the same within two months' time. On filing such documents, the appellant-authorities are directed to consider the same within a period of two months thereafter and pass an order. In case all the documents are already filed within the stipulated time, they are directed to grant permission without causing further delay. Writ appeal is allowed with the above directions. --- *** --- .