JUDGMENT : VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J. This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.59394/2016 (KLR-RES). 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.73/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District. He sought conversion of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The appellant No.2 issued an endorsement dated 01.02.2014 directing the respondent to pay Rs.47,50,000/- i.e. the market value of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The respondent paid the said amount and conversion order was issued which was later challenged and a refund was sought. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material or record directed the appellant No.2 to refund the amount. Being aggrieved, the State is in appeal. 3. Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the conversion sought by the respondent is for 9½ guntas of 'A' kharab land and the State Government is the owner of the said land. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay the market value of the said land as he would be using the said land as the owner. It is submitted that the demand by the appellant No.2 to pay the market value of the 'A' kharab land is pursuant to the circular dated 16.09.1994 at Annexure-R1 and the Government order dated 16.05.2018, wherein the appellant No.1 had issued directions and guidelines to all the Deputy Commissioners to collect the market value of the kharab land, collect the conversion fees and thereafter, consider the application for conversion. However, this aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the respondent has agreed and paid the market value of the kharab land and seeking refund of the same after the conversion order has been passed is impermissible as is evident from the letter dated 02.02.2013 at Annexure-R8. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent has agreed and paid the market value of the kharab land and seeking refund of the same after the conversion order has been passed is impermissible as is evident from the letter dated 02.02.2013 at Annexure-R8. Hence, she seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Phaneendra, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Sammith S., learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge, considering the law laid down by this Court has recorded a clear finding that the appellant No.2 cannot collect the market value of the land for 'A' kharab land and directed to refund the amount. It is submitted that the 'A' kharab land is an unarable land that goes along with the cultivable land and for conversion, the Authorities are entitled to collect only conversion charges for 'A' kharab land and not the market price. It is further submitted that if the kharab is 'B' phut kharab, then the State is entitled to collect the market price of 'B' phut kharab land and also the conversion fees if the application is filed for conversion. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. P.BHIMACHAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS.,  1966 (2) Mys LJ 184 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS Vs. ISTAK AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND OTHERS, 2015 SCC Online Kar 8640 3. L.A.KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2009 SCC Online Kar 38 4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.G.ANURADHA, W.A.No.3524 of 2009 dtd 26.07.2010 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. L.A.KRISHNAPPA, W.A.No.2274 of 2009 dtd 28.07.2010 Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record and the decisions relied. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides. 6. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record and the decisions relied. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides. 6. The writ petition was filed by the respondent seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant No.2 to refund a sum of Rs.47,50,000/- collected for conversion of land in Sy.No.73/1 measuring 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, on the ground that this Court in the case of L.A.KRISHNAPPA , referred supra has held that there cannot be any demand for payment of market price for phut 'A' kharab land where a conversion of land is sought from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.73/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore Distrist. The respondent sought conversion of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The appellant No.2 issued an endorsement dated 01.02.2014 directing the respondent to pay Rs.47,50,000/- i.e. the market value of 9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land which was paid and the conversion order was issued. The respondent sought a refund of the amount paid towards the market value and sought for a writ of mandamus to the said effect. 7. It would be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of L.A.KRISHNAPPA referred supra Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted below for ready reference: "4. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relevant provisions under the Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 would be Rule 21, which provides for classification of lands. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 reads as follows:— “Rule 21. Classification:— (1) ……………………………………………. (2) During the process of classification land included as. unarable shall be treated as “Pot Kharab” Pot Kharab lands may be classified as follows:— (a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm building or threshing floors of the holder. Classification:— (1) ……………………………………………. (2) During the process of classification land included as. unarable shall be treated as “Pot Kharab” Pot Kharab lands may be classified as follows:— (a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm building or threshing floors of the holder. (b) That which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognized footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for village potteries.” It is stated that at the time of survey and settlement of land records, the Pot Kharab portion of the land in the survey number was so classified as unarable under Rule 21(2)(a) and this is how it has been referred to in the RTC extracts, which is at Annexure-” A” to the petition. The counsel would then draw attention of this Court to Rule 107 of the Rules, which is extracted herein for ready reference:— “Rule 107. Levy of fine for conversion of agricultural and for non-agricultural use:— The amount of fine which may be levied under sub-Section (7) of Section 95 shall be at the rates specified in the table below, namely:— Sl. No Place Area Rate of fine in Rs. Per square meter Residential 1 Bangalore (Urban District) Municipal Corporation limits and all lands within a distance of 18 km from the corporation limits and other places The counsel would contend that it is therefore clear that the conversion and fine prescribed do not make any distinction between an arable portion of land and un anarable portion of land. The petitioner as an occupant of the land is entitled to all the benefits that arises out of the land. Section 2(14) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act defines the word “Land” as including the benefits that arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and also shares in, or charges on, the Revenue or rent of villages or other defined areas.” This inclusive definition makes it clear that the petitioner is entitled to rights in the total extent of land without any reservation of any part being made in favour of the Government. The Kharab Portion as classified under Rule 21(2)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is therefore a benefit arising out of the land in the occupation of the petitioner. Rule 107 relating to levy of fine of conversion of agricultural land does not make any distinction between arable and unarable portions of the land. In any event, it does not prescribe any amount of fine based on the market value of any portion of the land. Therefore, the demand by the second respondent for payment of the amount calculated on the kharab (a) portion of land is illegal and without authority of law. The counsel would raw the attention of the Court to the Circular clarifying this position as understood by the Government, as early as 8-12-1971, which is at Annexure-“C” and which is extracted herein for ready reference:— “Pot Kharab lands defined under Rule 21(2)(a) are those classified as unfit for agricultural at the time of survey, including the Farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder. As clarified by the Law Department, all Pot Kharab lands which form part of a holding and which have not been reserved for Government or assigned for any public purpose or for any other purposes mentioned in Rule 21(2)(b) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules, belong to the owner of the survey number and not Government. The question of any further disposal of such Pot Kharab lands does not therefore arise.” Further, the counsel would point out that in so far as a later Circular dated 16-9-1994, which is at Annexure — “D” to the petition is concerned, the tenor of the Circular has expressed an apprehension that there has been loss to the Government Revenue for not charging conversion fine in respect of Kharab (a) portion of the land and based on such apprehension, directions were issued to the Revenue Officers to impose land value on the Kharab Portion and also collect the conversion fine for the balance of the land. The demand for payment of the market value is traceable to this misinterpretation of the rule and the law in making illegal demand of the market value of the Pot Kharab portion of the land in the petitioner's occupation.’ It is in this background that the present petition is sought to be filled. The demand for payment of the market value is traceable to this misinterpretation of the rule and the law in making illegal demand of the market value of the Pot Kharab portion of the land in the petitioner's occupation.’ It is in this background that the present petition is sought to be filled. The counsel would place reliance on the judments of this Court P. Bhimachar v. State of Mysore and Others [1966 (2) Mys. LJ 184] wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that Pot Kharab portion of the land is included in the ownership of the occupant. A similar view is taken in Saudagar Rasoor Khan v. State of Mysore [AIR 1973 Karnataka 56] wherein it is held that Kharab land is so called because it is not cultivable and is a classification made for the purposes of revenue exemption. Rule 21(2)(a) is thus a provision relating to the exemption from the payment of Land Revenue and has no relevance for assuming that the Pot Kharab portion is land not included in the occupancy, and that it belongs to the Government. From this point of view also the demand made for the payment of the market value on the Pot Kharab is unauthorised. 5. While the Government Pleader on the other hand, would seek to justify the action of the State Government on the basis of the Circulars namely Circular No. RD 136 LGS 93, dated 16-9-1994 as well as the Circular No. RD 137 LQW 2001, dated 17-6- 2003 whereunder an opinion of the Law Department is expressed to the effect that kharab lands are Government lands and therefore, the question of acquiring those lands does not arise and hence, there is no scope for making any payments to the landlords in respect of Kharab land. Reliance is also placed on a Circular dated 12-5-2004 wherein it is clarified that if “A” Kharab land if granted by the competent authority, it would only then become part and parcel of Hiduvali land of the landlord. It is contended by the Government pleader that the ownership of “A” Kharab land always vests with the Government unless it is granted to the landowner by the competent authority. and therefore, would submit that the demand made is in order. 6. It is contended by the Government pleader that the ownership of “A” Kharab land always vests with the Government unless it is granted to the landowner by the competent authority. and therefore, would submit that the demand made is in order. 6. It is not in dispute that in the present circumstances, the demand made is in respect of Pot Kharab (a) land. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no distinction made between an arable portion of land and an unarable portion of land under Rule 107-for purposes of levy of fine for conversion of land for non-agricultural use. The reliance sought to be placed by the state on the circulars which are mere clarifications based on the opinions expressed by its Law Department would not override the express provisions of the law, which have been referred to herein above. There is no indication that there is a distinction between an arable portion of land and unarable portion of land. The provisions of Section 95 relating to conversion of agricultural land for other purposes does not also make any such distinction. Hence, the State Government seeking to interpret the provisions in order to obtain higher revenue would not be tenable. It is only in respect of Pot Kharab (b) lands, it could be said that the State Government can claim the same as Government lands. In so far as Pot Kharab (a) lands are concerned, the Division Bench decisions referred to above is categorical on this aspect and that has attained finality. There is no other manner in which the provisions could be interpreted." 8. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. ISTAK AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND OTHERS referred supra, wherein it was held in paragraph 12 as under: "12. There is no other manner in which the provisions could be interpreted." 8. It would also be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. ISTAK AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND OTHERS referred supra, wherein it was held in paragraph 12 as under: "12. As can be seen, when unarable land is classified as ‘Pot Kharab’, meaning that it is not brought under cultivation and that no land revenue is paid in respect of such land any further classification in sub-Clause (a) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, it is evident that if it is unarable and unfit for agriculture and may include farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder, it would form part of larger extent of land, held by the owner and would run with the land. No doubt, it would be unarable land and no land revenue is paid on the same, but ownership of the land would continue with the land owner. If it is classified as under sub-Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, it would be utilised for a public purpose and no individual would have any claim over the same and it would be used for purposes such as for road or footpath or a tank or a stream or burial ground or cremation ground or for village potteries." 9. This Court, in the case of the STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.G.ANURADHA referred supra had also considered the circular dated 16.09.1994 of the State Government and granted the relief to the petitioner. 10. The respondent admittedly sought for conversion of 'A' kharab land to non-agricultural purposes and paid the conversion fees. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of the law laid down by this Court, the demand for payment of market value by the appellant No.2 is without any justification and also that it is based on the circular which has been quashed by this Court. The subsequent order is also based on the circular dated 16.09.1994. Hence, even under the said order, the appellants cannot raise the demand for payment of market value. It is noticed that the State Government has brought an amendment to Rule 107-AA of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996. Admittedly the case on hand is prior to the amendment. The subsequent order is also based on the circular dated 16.09.1994. Hence, even under the said order, the appellants cannot raise the demand for payment of market value. It is noticed that the State Government has brought an amendment to Rule 107-AA of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996. Admittedly the case on hand is prior to the amendment. This Court in the aforesaid decision has already taken a view that the phut 'A' kharab land is an unarable land and the said classification is solely for the revenue assessment of the said land. However, the ownership of such land would continue with the landowner. Hence, the demand for market value of such unarable land which is classified as a phut 'A' kharab land which goes along the with arable land owned by the respondent, is not justified. The learned Single Judge, considering the aforesaid aspect has rightly allowed the writ petition by directing the appellants to refund the amount. The same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. The order of the learned Single Judge shall be complied within six weeks from today. Consequently, pending interlocutory application, if any stands disposed of. No order as to costs.