Judgment :- Huluvadi G.Ramesh, J: Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to collect the conversion charges from him in respect of Sy.No.12A/2 measuring 1 acre 30 Guntas situated at Belekeri Village, Ankola Taluk, Uttar Kannada District and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and use of the land for non-agricultural purpose 2. According to the petitioner, the land was granted to him by the Land Grant Committee on 6-7-1994 to the extent of 2 acres and since then he is in possession. It is his contention that in view of the implementation of the project ‘Sea Bird’ and the rehabilitation scheme, large extent of land on either side of the petitioner’s land were acquired for development of Belekere port and for transportation of Manganese ore and the entire land adjacent to the petitioner’s land were converted to commercial purpose. In view of the changed circumstances, it was very difficult for him to cultivate the land. He therefore, filed an application on 11-9-2008 in the office of the 3rd respondent under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for permission to divert the land for non-agricultural purpose and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. Inspite of this, since no action has been taken, it is contended, as per Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, permission is deemed to have been granted after completion of 4 months from the date of application. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the application filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 18-2-2010 i.e., after lapse of one year. 4. However, what is being noticed is that the decision was taken nearly after more than one year. So far as communication of the order is concerned, according to the petitioner, no such order is communicated to him. What is contemplated under Section 95(5) of the Act is that if the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-section (2) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the application, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. 5. However, it is seen that the decision taken by the respondent-authorities is after a lapse of one year. 5. However, it is seen that the decision taken by the respondent-authorities is after a lapse of one year. No material is placed by the petitioner to show that the order of rejection has been communicated to him. In view of the lapse on the part of the Deputy Commissioner, it is for the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned and seek for necessary orders as per the deemed clause and take necessary steps to obtain the order in accordance with law. 6. With the above said observations, petition is disposed of.