Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 902 (KAR)

A. N. Yashoda v. State of Karnataka

2001-12-11

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2001
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner has questioned the correctness of the impugned order and notice dated 16.10.2001 and notice dated 05.03.2001 issued by the third Respondent and Village Accountant at Annexures "A" and "E" respectively urging the following legal contentions: 2. The order of attachment made at Annexure "A" under Section 165 read with Section 156 is without authority of law, as the Petitioner is not liable to pay conversion fine of Rs. 87,747.00 in respect of the lands. The conversion order was obtained by him under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short "KLR-Act") for the reason that the Petitioner after obtaining the order, sold the land after formation of sites. Therefore the Learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner is not primarily liable for payment of the conversion fine as provided in the table to Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (in short "Rules"). Learned Counsel elaborating his submission contends that the liability upon the conversion fine as provided under Rule 107 read with Section 95(7) shall go with the land and the sites formed in the land were sold to different persons. Therefore the impugned order passed against him is not binding as the same is without authority of law. He had further contended that the said order is also bad in law for another reason that the conversion fine amount has been determined without giving opportunity to the Petitioner. Further the notice dated 05.03.2001 also not sustainable in law, as he is not liable to pay the said amount. 3. With reference to the said contentions, I have examined the provisions of Section 95(7) read with Rule 107 and the provision of Section 165 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. By a careful reading of the provision under Section 95(7) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with Rule 107, it would clearly go to show that the conversion fine shall be paid by either the occupant who got the land converted either under Sub-section (2) or deemed permission of conversion under Sub-section (5) or under Sub-section (6A) or by the owner or the converted land. Rule 107 of the Rules clearly states that fine to be levied under Sub-section (7) of Section 95 in respect of the converted land shall be at the rate specified in the table of the said Rule under column No. 2 and the table of the particulars regarding conversion area, rate of fine in Rs. as per square is clearly mentioned. By reading the said rule, either the owner or the occupant who gets the land converted shall pay the conversion levy fine of conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use. If at the time of levying such fine, if there is any omission for assigning the conversion levy fine in respect of the land in question, it is open for the revenue authority to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Therefore the contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he is not liable to pay as he has sold the conversion land in favour of different persons and they are liable to pay under Sub-section (7) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is wholly untenable in law and therefore made in this regard is rejected. Further contention urged by the Learned Counsel is that no conversion fine shall be levied upon the land in question except under Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, which states the manner of assessment and commutation of non-agricultural assessment of the land. Therefore the submission that he is not liable to pay the demanded amount vide Annexure "E" is contrary to the statutory liability fixed on the occupant who gets his land converted from agricultural use to the non-agricultural use is also wholly untenable in law in view of the provisions of Section 95(7) read with Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules for levying conversion fee upon the converted land. The further contention that Section 165 has no application for recovery of the conversion levy fine in respect of the land which was converted is also not tenable in law as the revenue authorities have got every power under the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to supra to levy the conversion fee fixed at the time of passing the conversion order in respect of the converted land as provided in the table under Rule 107 of the Rules. By mistake the calculations regarding levy of conversion amount was wrongly made. By mistake the calculations regarding levy of conversion amount was wrongly made. Subsequently, the Respondents have got every authority and power to rectify the mistake and issue demand notice to pay the exact conversion levy fine amount in respect of the converted land. If it is not paid, the same has to be recovered as arrears of land revenue after following the procedure contemplated under Section 165 and other provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Therefore the Respondent herein has rightly passed the order of attachment at Annexure "A" by issuing an attachment of the immovable property of the Petitioner. This cannot be termed as either without authority of law or illegal regarding the primary liability of payment of conversion fee in respect of the land in question, which was got converted by the Petitioner. The submission that he is not primarily liable to pay the demanded amount is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the contention urged in that regard is rejected. The contention urged under Section 157 that liability for revenue in the case of alienated land superior holder shall be primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of the land revenue is also not accepted by this Court as the same is wholly untenable in law for the reason that the payment of conversion levy fine of the converted land as prescribed under table 2 of the Rule 107 of the Rules and read with Sub-section (7) of Section 95, levy of conversion fine is not the payment of the land revenue. Both are distinct and different from each other is correct, but the Respondents have got every right and authority to collect the conversion amount in respect of the land in question as arrears of land revenue if either the occupant or the owner fails to pay such amount as demanded under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore the said contention must fail. 4. In so far as the determination of the amount mentioned in the order is concerned, Respondents 2 and 3 are required to give opportunity to the Petitioner to fix the amount of less paid conversion levy fine amount in respect of the converted land as required to be payable under Sub-section (7) of Section 95 read with Rule 107. The order of attachment of the property shall be in force. The order of attachment of the property shall be in force. The matter is remitted back to the second Respondent with a direction to hear the Petitioner with regard to the quantum of amount to be determined towards the less paid conversion fine under the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to supra, for this limited purpose, the matter is remitted back to the second Respondent with a direction as indicated above. The second Respondent with regard to attachment of immovable property as made at Annexure 'A' shall be in tact and the amount shall be determined after giving opportunity to the Petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. The Petitioner shall appear before the second Respondent on 28.01.2002 for the purpose of determining the quantum of less paid conversion levy fine. For the reasons stated supra, Annexure 'E' need not be quashed. Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the directions and observations made in this order.