In the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Dated This the 20Th Day of July, 2015 Before the Hon'ble Mr.Justice B.Veerappa W
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA W.P. No. 106849/2014 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SRI MANISH S/O BRAHMDATTA MADAN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O KABIR AGENCY, SUBHAS ROAD, DHARWAD. - PETITIONER (BY SRI MURGENDRA TUBAKE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD. 2. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVI V. HOSAMANI, A.G.A) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: : 2 : ORDER 1. Petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to quash the endorsement dated 15.06.2011 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and directing the respondents to consider his application dated 26.04.2011 vide Annexure ‘B’ application for conversion. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and in actual possession of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 83/2 of Shinganahalli village, Tq. & dist. Dharwad. The land of the petitioner and other agricultural land of Shinganahalli villagers were declared for the purpose of industrial development by issuing a gazatte notification and the petitioners and other owners of the land filed the objections and requested the authority to drop the acquisition proceedings, since, the lands in question are required for personal (private) industrial development. The present petitioner is going to start an industrial establishment in the said property, namely, manufacturing of steel furniture, computer spare parts and other stationary articles as since : 3 : forefather of the petitioner have been conducting the stationary business. Without looking into the objections raised by the petitioners, the acquisition authority approved land of the petitioner for the purpose of industrial area. Unfortunately the adjoining land of the petitioners, namely, Lingaraj son of Godachappa Kongawad bearing sy. No. 77/2, whose land has been dropped by the authority. As such the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing no. 60660/2012 for the relief of quashing acquisition proceedings. Said writ petition is still pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 26.04.2011 requesting the respondents to convert the said land for non-agricultural purposes more particularly industrial purpose. In pursuance of the said representation the respondent authority have been called for the petitioner to participate in the meeting, which has been conducted by the respondent authorities in respect of conversion of lands into non agricultural purpose. It is also the case of the petitioners that in response to the notice Annexure-C petitioner had appeared in the meeting but no action was taken. Again the : 4 : petitioner approached the respondent authority requesting them to convert the said land into non-agricultural purpose but there is no positive result, without further enquiry and without looking into the material available in the records, the respondent authorities have replied on 15.06.2011 stating that the land in question has been under acquisition proceedings for the industrial area. Petitioners further contended that in similar circumstances similarly situated two persons filed writ petitions bearing nos.104282/2014 and 104283/2014 and this Court disposed off the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider their representations in accordance with law. Therefore, they are before this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis . 4. Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondents is illegal, perverse and said endorsement is without any basis. Admittedly, the petitioners challenged the very notification issued by the State Government on behalf of : 5 : KIADB in W.P. No. 60660/2012 which is pending for adjudication and this Court granted interim order of stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the said land in question. Further, the acquisition proceedings are not yet completed. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the endorsement issued on 15.06.2011 and the petitioners filed the present writ petition after lapse of two years and the impugned order is appealable and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any relief before this Court. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the owners of the property in question. It is also not in dispute that the land of the petitioners has been acquired by the State Government by issuing preliminary notification u/S 28(1) of the KIADB Act on 07.11.2009. The said notification is questioned by the : 6 : petitioners before this Court in W.P. No. 60660/2012 and this Court granted interim order of stay of dispossession and the acquisition proceedings are not yet concluded. In the meantime, he has filed application for conversion of the lands. The authorities issued endorsement only on the ground that the property of the petitioner is included in the preliminary notification u/S 28(1) of the K.I.A.D.B. Act. Therefore, the application is rejected. The endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner is not a ground for appeal as contended by the learned A.G.A. When the authorities issued preliminary notification u/S 28(1) of the K.I.A.D.B. Act and it is not forthcoming whether they have issued final notification and whether the acquisition proceedings are concluded and in the absence of any material document to produce that acquisition proceedings are finalized, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner ought to have considered application of the petitioner for conversion when he made application u/S 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for conversion of the land into non-agricultural purposes. : 7 : 8. Mere pendency of the proceedings by issuing preliminary notification by the KIADB is not a ground to reject the application by the petitioner for conversion. The Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances in the case of Thayappa Vs. State of Karnataka made in Writ Appeal No. 100024/2015 disposed of on 08.04.2015 and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration of the application filed by the applicant seeking conversion of the land, within a period of three months. 9. In that view of the aforesaid reasons, the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D dated 15.06.2011 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SD/- JUDGE bvv.