IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.29720-721/2017 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN 1. ANJENAPPA SON OF LATE BOSAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, CHIMANGALA VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
2. V.NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS CHIMANGALA VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
2. TAHSILDAR, SIDDALAGHATTA, SIDDALAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEX-F THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 4.5.2017 ISSUED BY R-1 AND ANNEX-F1 DATED 5.5.2017; AND TO DECLARE THAT THE CONVERSION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S LAND BEARING SY.NO.102 MEASURING 3 ACRES IN SY.NO.102 OF KOLIMIHOSUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, AND AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRES IN SY.NO. 98 OF KOLINIHOSUR VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES PURSUANT TO THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND DATED 24.12.2016 AT ANNEX-E AND DATED 7.1.2017 IN ANNEX-E1 AND FURTHER, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioner No.1 was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.102 and petitioner No.2 was granted 3 acres of land in Sy.No.98 both situated at Kolinihosur Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District.
2. Petitioners applied for permission to alienate the land due to their family constraints as provided under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’). The State Government granted permission vide order dated 07.11.2016 on certain conditions. According to petitioners sale transaction could not take place on account of certain factors. As a result, having regard to the location of the land in close proximity to Chikkaballapur and with an intention to establish an industry, petitioners applied for conversion of land before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur. These applications were filed on 24.12.2016 and 07.01.2017 as per Annexures-E and E1. The Deputy Commissioner has issued endorsements dated 04.05.2017 rejecting the request and informing petitioners that as petitioners had not sold the land in terms of permission granted for sale of the property and in terms of the affidavit and indemnity bond filed by them they were not entitled for an order of conversion. It is these endorsements produced at Annexures-F and F1 that are called in question in these writ petitions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
4. At the outset it has to be noticed that there is no bar to seek conversion of granted land in case the grantee intends to make use of the same for non-agricultural purpose including establishing an industry as has been intended in the present case. Mere fact that at one point of time petitioners had sought for permission to sell and permission had been granted on certain conditions does not mean that if for some reasons, sale transaction could not be through, petitioners would be barred from utilising the property for themselves in the manner best suited so as to have better benefits from the land in question.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners makes it clear that the land is sought to be converted for the purpose of establishing an industry by petitioners and that in this regard petitioners have secured clearance from several bodies viz., Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Industries and Commerce. Indeed permission granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the clearance given by the Department of Industries and Commerce are enclosed to the writ petitions.
6. Bonafides of petitioners in their endeavour to utilise the land for non-agricultural purpose for their own benefit are not in doubt. It is also fairly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in the event petitioners intend to alienate any portion of the property they will seek permission from the State Government/competent authority and therefore, there is no impediment for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the request made seeking conversion of land.
7. This contention of learned counsel for petitioners is just and legal. In the absence of any prohibition for making use of the granted land for non-agricultural purpose and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein petitioners were not successful in finalising the sale transaction though permission was granted to them by the State Government to alienate the property, I do not find any legally tenable reason to reject the request made by petitioners seeking conversion. The Deputy Commissioner was not right and justified in rejecting the applications on the ground that petitioners failed to sell the land despite grant of permission. The only clarification that is required to be made is that once petitioners secure the order of conversion they have to utilise the land for their benefit and in case for some reasons, they intend to sell the property they have to seek permission in terms of the provisions contained under Section 4(2) of the Act.
8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.
Impugned endorsements are set aside. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the request made by petitioners for conversion of lands in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners shall utilise the land for themselves if an order for conversion is made and in case they intend to sell the land, they have to necessarily seek prior permission of the State Government.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE VP