Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions have come up for orders on Misc W No 8899 for direction, which is an application made by the writ petitioner under Order (sic) 226(3) of the Constitution of India [the word ‘order’ should read as Article], seeking for the further relief through this application as under: “To issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to expunge the remarks made in the official memorandum dated 4.9.2010 with reference to the pendency of the writ petition and issue a fresh official memorandum thereof.” 2. Body of the application indicates that it has become necessary for the petitioner to seek for this further relief in the context of the subsequent development that had taken place subsequent to the passing of the interim order by this court on 6-8-2010 reading as under: …Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing and indicating that after the production of interim order passed by this court, while fifth respondent did issue Official Memorandum dated 4-9-2010 [Annexure-A to the application], granting permission for conversion of the subject land for non-agricultural use with certain concessions, but with a further conditions that the order will be subject to the result of the above writ petition before this court and unless the petitioner obtains permission from the planning authority, Kanakapura for utilization of the land for which purpose alone the conversion order is passed and if the petitioner fails to obtain such a permission from the planning authority, conversion order will not be any avail to the petitioner, as well as other 11 routine conditions in such conversion orders. 3. 3. An intimation letter dated 3-9-2010, also signed by the Deputy Commissioner, is appended to the conversion order to apprise the petitioner, inter alia, that the conversion fine that was required to be paid and which the petitioner could have sought for refund after the implementation of the project as per the industrial policy for encouraging development of industry etc., and which amount otherwise should have been paid, is exempt from payment in terms of the interim order passed by this court on 6-8-2010, giving an impression that this court had issued a positive direction granting exemption from payment of conversion fine, though it is so required to be paid by law and even a person like the petitioner, who seeks for development of some industry, being entitled for seeking refund of the amount after initial payment, after satisfactory implementation of the project etc. 4. It is in this background, prayer for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to expunge the remarks made in the official memorandum dated 4-9-2010 with reference to the pendency of the writ petition and issue of a fresh official memorandum. 5. Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA, appearing for the respondents, drawing attention to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to either the main prayer in the writ petition or any direction as sought for in the application; that the writ petition is a frivolous petition; that the scheme of industrial policy does not envisage a non-payment of conversion fine; that from the very beginning, it is not am exemption from payment of conversion fine, but the scheme is for payment of conversion fine on the permission to convert an agricultural land for non-agricultural use, but if the project in terms of the development of industry as per the industrial policy is in fact implemented, on and after the implementation, this is an enabling provision for such a person to claim reimbursement and that it is not even a refund, but reimbursement of the amount paid from the government and therefore submits that if the petitioner had not paid the conversion fine, there is no question conversion order being made effective or issued in favour of the petitioner without the initial payment etc. 6. 6. Learned AGA also submits that there is no right in favour a person like the petitioner, but if at all, the petitioner can avail of the concession of reimbursement after payment of conversion fee and implementation of the project and not at any time before. It is, therefore, submitted that even the conversion order granted on the strength of the interim order cannot be sustained, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is only conspicuous by his absence. 8. Before examining further the merits of the case and on the last occasion when the matter had come up before this court, on noticing that the writ petitioners had managed to obtain an interim order which though read as an interim stay as prayed for, had been utilized to bring about results not envisaged in law and in the very order and in that context, this court had made certain observations in the earlier order dated 9-2-2011, and for ready reference, it is quoted hereunder: The present writ petition appears to be a classic example of misuse and abuse of court’s power, particularly in Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for litigants without bona fides and without any genuine cause or grievance rushing to high court with trumped up and simulated causes and with the revenue authorities and the officials of the directorate of industries and commerce and with such persons managing to obtain orders from this court even at the threshold of the examination, resulting in a relief going much beyond the main prayer in the writ petition such sequence of events only vividly demonstrates how the process of this court can be misused or abused by litigants without bona fides and without any real grievance, to bring about results which may be otherwise not possible or permitted in law. Writ petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved, that even when as per the policy of the government of Karnataka, persons intended to set up industries in certain notified areas are to be encouraged in many ways and one such way being by granting exemption from payment of conversion fee levied for the purpose of granting permission to use agricultural lands assessed to land revenue, for non-agricultural purpose and in the instant case, for setting up of a granite cutting industry by the petitioner, as claimed in the writ petition, revenue authorities, particularly the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagaram district, in terms of his communication dated 17-7-2010 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition] having apprised the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act] and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 [for short, the Rules] for granting permission in favour of petitioner to convert agricultural land mentioned in the application filed under Section 95(2) of the Act, the petitioner was required to pay the following charges: “KARNATAKA” “TABLE” Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by this appraisal letter “KARNATAKA” and has approached this court seeking for the following relief: PRAYER (a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the Order dated 17.7.2010 in No. RaJiKa/A.L.N. (Ka) CR/27/10-11 issued by the 4th Respondent, produced as Annexure-A to this writ petition; (b) for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to issue a Official Memorandum to the Petitioner from exemption of land conversion fee and permit the Petitioner to carry on the business of cutting of granite and polishing etc. in the lands; and (c) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. INTERIM PRAYER Pending consideration of the above writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the Order dated 17.7.2010 in No. RaJiKa/ A.L.N. (Ka) CR/27/10-11 issued by the 4th Respondent, produced as Annexure-A to this writ petition and consequently, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to issue a Official Memorandum to the Petitioner from exemption of land conversion fee, in the interest of justice. The manner in which this petition has been examined by this court is indicated in the order sheet of this court, which is as under: ABJ: 6-8-2010 Issue rule. Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing. ASPJ: 27-9-2010 List it for preliminary hearing on 6-10-2010. HNNDJ: 6-10-2010 At request, call after Dasara vacation. ASPJ: 26-10-2010 Counsel for the petitioner absent. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondent Nos 1 to 7 Call next week BSPJ: 11-11-2010 At the request of learned Addl Govt Advocate, relist this matter on 18-11-2010. BSPJ: 18-11-2010 At the request of learned Addl Govt Advocate, call next week. BSPJ: 26-11-2010 Learned Govt Pleader is finally granted a week’s time to file statement of objections. DVSKJ: 2-2-2011 List next week. Writ petitioner has subsequently filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking for expunging certain remarks in the Official Memorandum dated 4-9-2010 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District in which figures the interim order passed by this Court on 06.08.2010 in this petition at reference No.5, to the Official Memorandum which is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner subsequent to the filing of the present petition and as a sequel to the order passed by this court on 06.08.2010 indicating the pendency of the present writ petition before this court and that the endorsement is subject to the outcome of the writ petition pending before this court and therefore this court should issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh official memorandum without such conditions etc. The manner in which subsequent developments have taken place, developments subsequent to the passing of the interim order by this court on 6-8-2010, which is one of granting an interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing etc., and even when there is no record in the order sheet that such an interim order has been extended by any further positive order passed by this court at a subsequent hearing and even when respondents are represented by the learned AGA, the manner in which developments as indicated in the annexure produced along with the application for direction filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, which are all copies of Official Memorandum dated 04.09.2010, “KARNATAKA” dated 03.09.2010, Challan dated 03.09.2010, “KARNATAKA” dated 17.07.2010, communication dated 08.09.2010 issued by the joint director, district industrial centre, Ramanagaram to the petitioner and application form for obtaining clearance from district level single window agency, leaves much to be desired and is a true mirror to the manner of functioning of the state government and its officials. Lukewarm manner in which the state government has defended this petition also indicates that the officials of the state government, particularly respondents herein, act in their own ways, while defending the interest of Government/State in litigation before the court and only reveals as to how conniving officials who play tune to the convenience of persons approaching them can how innocuously and innocently ensured to get relief otherwise not permitted in law and through court orders and in the process how judicial proceeding can be derailed to provide results not permissible or enabled in law by playing a role which is nothing short of “suppressio very and suggestio falsi.” Respondents have not filed any counter hitherto. But, Sri Omkumar, learned AGA seeks to defend their actions vociferously and has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Act and Rule 107 of the Rules and also the Karnataka New Industrial Policy 2009-2014 to submit that even if as described by Sri V B Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that Annexure-A is to be taken as a demand notice, there is nothing wrong with that, as it is inevitable for the petitioner to pay the conversion fee in advance, as it is only subject to payment of conversion fee, the Deputy Commissioner grants permission for conversion and not otherwise etc. It is rather strange and puzzling as to how writ petitioner has asserted and has claimed relief as mentioned in the earlier part of this order, even when the official who has issued Annexure-A had very clearly indicated the quantum of conversion fee payable on granting permission for use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes and even when the joint director, district industrial centre, Ramanagaram, in terms of his communication dated 27-7-2010 [copy at Annexure-K to the writ petition] has apprised the petitioner that even according to the industrial policy of the government, there is no provision to grant exemption towards payment of conversion fee, but the benefit is only for claiming reimbursement of conversion fee after the industrial project is implemented and the plant commences commercial production and thereafter the person interested can claim reimbursement by producing necessary material/documents. Even as per the petition pleadings, when the petitioner approached this court on 3-8-2010, the Deputy Commissioner had not even permitted conversion of subject land for non-agricultural purpose. A conversion fee becomes leviable only on grant of permission and not otherwise. If an application praying for conversion is refused, no fee will be leviable. It is not as though the fee is an application fee, but as the very name suggests, it is ‘conversion fee’ and springs into action after the permission for conversion is granted and not otherwise. Even before the Deputy Commissioner grants permission in terms of Section 95(2) of the Act, if a person claims exemption from payment of conversion fee, it is nothing short of a premature, untenable, illogical claim. But, what shocks this court is the manner in which the revenue authorities have lapped up the interim order passed by this court, to pass further order and to issue the official memorandum dated 4-9-2010, produced as Annexure-A to the application dated 15-9-2010 seeking for additional prayer/direction, preceded by another intimation letter dated 3-9-2010, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner has virtually granted exemption in favour of petitioner from payment of conversion fee, purporting to be on the basis of the interim order granted by this court on 6-8-2010 and calling upon the petitioner to pay only the podi fee and exempting the petitioner from payment of conversion fee! which is nothing short of Deputy Commissioner granting an exemption which is not within his power or domain, even as submitted by the learned AGA and the officials of the department of industries and commerce having fast tracked the clearance for setting up of industries as per the communication dated 8-9-2010 from the joint director, district industrial centre, Ramanagaram addressed to the petitioner’s concern, which completes the picture as to how the court proceedings can be misused or abused, as observed in the earlier part of this order. No wonder the writ petitioner has promptly come up with an application seeking for deletion of the conditions subject to which the conversion order and the exemption of conversion fee are made, so that irrespective of the result or outcome of the writ petition, benefits conferred on the petitioner by revenue authorities and officials of the industrial and commerce department is sustained, and becomes permanent whether or not such benefits can be conferred on the petitioner as per the existing statutory provisions. Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared today, though was absent on several earlier occasions, who is unfortunately not having the writ petition papers and is handicapped for making full submissions, though submitted that the petitioner is inclined to withdraw this writ petition, in view of the subsequent developments, but has later on gone back from this submission and submits that in view of the official memorandum now issued, the endorsement at Annexure-A has to be quashed, as the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of conversion fee, as per the industrial police of the government for 2009-2014. Learned AGA does not agree that such can be result. Learned AGA does not agree that such can be result. While this court can examine what can be the result after further hear, Sri Shivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who seeks to make further submissions to elaborate the manner in which the petitioner is entitled for relief, it is very necessary that the government advocate secures the entire records not merely of the land conversion proceedings of the revenue department but also the record of the department of industries and commerce relating to the petitioner’s application and also the revenue records relating to the holdings of the petitioner, as indicated in Annexure-A, particularly as the petitioner though has described himself to be an industrialist is found to be in possession and is holding agricultural lands, which is prohibited in terms of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, unless the petitioner is an agriculturist himself and if not has acquired lands for bona fide of agricultural operations. List the matter for further hearing on 17-2-2011. 9. To ascertain as to how the Deputy Commissioner could have understood the order of ‘interim stay as prayed for’ granted by this court as a positive direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner, granting exemption from payment of conversion fine in favour of the writ petitioner, particularly as the precise order that was issued as interim order by the registry of the court is not available in the record and to know the practice in the registry as to in what manner the registry generates interim orders, when court has passed an order as ‘interim stay as prayed for’, the Registrar General and the Registrar (Judicial) of this court were called to the court hall. 10. 10. Thereafter, they have been apprised of the subject matter and the Registrar General in particular has been instructed to ensure that the practice of registry issuing a further improved or further modified form of the interim order is to be put to an end henceforth; that court orders i.e. order passed by a judge in the court hall cannot be further improved upon or in any way modified or curtailed by the officials in the registry in the guise of issue of certified copy of the interim order; that any order issued as certified copy of the order should remain true to the original order and if the registry finds certain orders passed in the court halls are not either intelligible or fully communicative as it is, to seek clarification from the learned judge and not to fill up gaps by their imagination or otherwise, particularly as the practice of the registry trying to fill up gaps, can also give scope for the parties to play mischief or for taking undue advantage and even the officials in the registry being manipulated, either for improving upon the order or for distorting the order granted in the court hall, and all such possibilities should be avoided in future and the practice giving scope for such possibilities discontinued forthwith. 11. In the present case, as can be noticed, while the interim order granted by this court on 6-8-2010, as noticed in the order sheet of the case file, is an ‘interim stay as prayed for’, it has been issued by the registry as certified copy in the following manner: INTERIM ORDER Pending disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition it is hereby ordered by this Court on Friday the 06th day of August 2010 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy as follows: Issue Rule Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing. Sd/-Judge Copy Sd/-Assistant Registrar NOTE: It is prayed to stay the order dated 17/07/2010 in No. RaJiKa/A.L.N. (Ka) CR/27/10-11 issued by the 4th Respondent vide Annexure-A to the WP and consequently, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to issue a official Memorandum to Petitioner from exemption of land conversion fee. Sd/-Judge Copy Sd/-Assistant Registrar NOTE: It is prayed to stay the order dated 17/07/2010 in No. RaJiKa/A.L.N. (Ka) CR/27/10-11 issued by the 4th Respondent vide Annexure-A to the WP and consequently, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to issue a official Memorandum to Petitioner from exemption of land conversion fee. SCHEDULE PROPERTY Lands measuring 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.41/1; 19 guntas in Sy.No.41/2; 15 guntas in Sy.No.42/2; 13 guntas in Sy.No.44/1; 13 guntas in Sy.No.44/2; 1 gunta in Sy.No.44/3; and 26 guntas in 45/3, totally measuring 5 acres 9 guntas, all situated in Kaggalahalli village, Harohalli Hobli, Karnataka Taluk, Ramanagara District, bounded on the: East by : M.N. Dharmavratha’s land West by : Bangalore-Kanakapura Main Road North by : Private Land South by : M.N. Sharnarthi’s land Sd/- Assistant Registrar 12. This is culled from the copy of the interim order issued in Form No IV, which was specifically absent from the records of the file, but was later found to be available in the dispatch section of the registry! and is brought to the court hall and made part of the record, which again, is grave irregularity and it is rather shocking that the court file never had a copy of the interim order that had been issued as a certified copy of the order passed by this court. 13. The interim order issued as certified copy of the court order can give an impression that the court had issued a positive interim direction in the matter, directing the Deputy Commissioner, to grant exemption to the petitioner from payment of conversion fine, as had been sought for in the prayer column, but on the other hand, no positive interim order or direction is issued in the order passed by this court as the order only states as ‘interim stay as prayed for’ and that too till next date of hearing. 14. As observed earlier, the writ petition and the entire process of this court is a misuse of the facility of writ jurisdiction of this court, particularly by seeking for issue of writs as indicated in prayer column of the petition and the application. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned AGA, writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief, either as sought for in the main petition or in the further application. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned AGA, writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief, either as sought for in the main petition or in the further application. Even the interim order granted by this court has been distorted, the application made for issue of a further direction to the Deputy Commissioner to delete the observation that the official memorandum is subject to the outcome of the proceedings before this court and subject to the result of the writ petition, is nothing but a browbeating tactic adopted by the petitioner to pressurize the respondent-officials. 16. A court procedure can never be allowed to be misused or abused, particularly to browbeat any statutory authority for seeking relief and benefits which are not otherwise permitted in law. Writ petitioner is neither entitled to an exemption from payment of conversion fine nor can utilize the conversion order without payment of conversion fine as per the provisions of Section 95(7) read with Section 107 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and industrial policy, if at all, is also for enabling reimbursement claim to be made on the implementation of the project proposed and for which purpose, conversion order is passed. 17. In the circumstances, the interim orders granted earlier are dissolved and the writ petitions as well as the application in Misc W No 8899 of 2010 are dismissed, levying exemplary cost quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) on the petitioners in favour of respondents, for misusing and abusing the process of this court. Cost to be deposited before this court by the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the fifth respondent for recovery of the cost, as though it is arrears of land revenue. It is the responsibility of the fifth respondent Deputy Commissioner to realize this amount and remitted it to the state Huzur treasury.