Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1076 (KAR)

P. M. Sonne Gowda v. State of Karnataka

2014-12-11

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2014
ORDER : Petitioner, being aggrieved by intimation letter dated 16/12/2013 (Annexure-C) issued by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, has filed this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 13 guntas including 3 guntas of Kharab (A) land situated at Petechamanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk. He had filed an application for conversion of 10 guntas of the aforesaid lands for non-agricultural purpose excluding 3 guntas of Kharab (A) land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). The second respondent has issued intimation letter dated 16.12.2013 at Annexure-C. That intimation letter/notice is assailed in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order of this Court dated 23/01/2009 passed in W.P.No.11344/2008 (Annexure-E) holding that the demand for payment of conversion fine must be in terms of Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and that no separate demand can be raised as per the market value insofar as kharab (A) land is concerned, while considering an application for conversion of the said land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the order of this Court, which has been upheld by the Division Bench vide order dated 28/07/2010 in W.A. No. 2274/2009, the second respondent has insisted on payment of market value for the kharab (A) land. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned notice ought to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader has stated that, what is impugned is only a notice and the petitioner could reply to the same by placing reliance on the orders of this Court and the same could be considered by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. 7. No doubt, this court, in the aforementioned orders, has held that, while granting conversion of kharab (A) lands, demand for payment of market value cannot be raised under Rule 107 of the Rules. The applicability of that judgment to the facts of the petitioner’s case would have to be considered by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. 7. No doubt, this court, in the aforementioned orders, has held that, while granting conversion of kharab (A) lands, demand for payment of market value cannot be raised under Rule 107 of the Rules. The applicability of that judgment to the facts of the petitioner’s case would have to be considered by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to reply to the impugned notice/intimation letter, by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments and on any other material, so as to contend that the petitioner is not liable to pay the market value of the kharab (A) land at the time of seeking conversion of the said land. If the reply is filed within a period of fifteen days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the second respondent to consider the same in light of the aforesaid order and judgments and in accordance with law and pass a fresh order with regard to the payment of market value on kharab (A) land under the provisions of the Act and Rules in an expeditious manner. 8. In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner is directed not to pass any adverse order against the petitioner, until the reply of the petitioner on the impugned notice/intimation letter is considered and a fresh speaking order is passed thereon. With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed.