Karnataka LRA| Deputy Commissioner Has No Jurisdiction Rejecting Land Conversion Application Post Expiry Of 4 Months U/s. 95(5): High Court
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench while dealing with a matter has held that as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to reject the application for conversion of land after the expiry of four months when the deeming clause under Section 95(5) applies.
A Single Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said, “A reading of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 makes it very clear that in the event the Deputy Commissioner / competent authority fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-Section (2) of Section 95 within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted.”
The Bench noted that the petitioner filed the application seeking conversion of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes.
Advocate G.I. Gachchinamath appeared for the petitioner while AGA Vinayak S. Kulkarni appeared for the respondent.
In this case, the petitioner was before the Court assailing the endorsement issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner and he also sought a writ of mandamus to the respondent to issue a conversion order in respect of a land. The petitioner, who was the owner of the agricultural land made an application before the respondent in 2022 seeking conversion of the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes.
The aforesaid application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner vide the impugned endorsement. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed, “The petitioner is deemed to have been granted conversion in respect of the land in question subject to he paying requisite conversion charges. … The respondent shall raise a demand for payment of the said charges and on receipt of the same, the petitioner shall take immediate steps for payment of the same pursuant to which a formal conversion order is to be issued to the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
Cause Title- D.T. Vinod Kumar v. The Deputy Commissioner (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC-D:7379)
