IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITIONS No.15872-15875 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. LINY ROY W/O DR. ROY C.J AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO 25, GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 123 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. ADISHESHA N … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA;
SHRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON I.A. NO.1/19) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Though these petitions are listed for consideration of interlocutary application for impleadment, with consent of the learned Senior advocate for the petitioners and learned AGA, the same are taken up for final disposal.
2. Shri Holla, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that land was converted for non-agricultural purpose by the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 30.07.2011. Thereafter, without issuing any notice, on 01.03.2016, the Deputy commissioner has revoked the said order. Further, no reasons are recorded for revoking the order.
3. In support of these petitions, Shri Holla contended that firstly, Deputy Commissioner having passed the order of conversion, becomes functus officio and he shall have no power to review his own order. Secondly, the order does not disclose violation of any condition. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.
4. Learned AGA submitted that the petitioner had obtained land conversion order to construct building for educational purpose. Whereas, the report of the Revenue Inspector shows that land was being used as a resort. Therefore, there is gross violation of conditions. Hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
6. Conversion of land is made under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (“The Act” for short). Should there be violation of any condition, State can take action under Section 96 of the Act.
7. Shri Holla, relied upon the decision of this Court in Sri.L.N.Lakshmanappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others1 8. This Court, in the aforesaid decision, has held that Deputy Commissioner becomes functus officio after 1 WP.NO.24459/2018 D.D:31.07.2018 passing the order under Section 95 of the Act. Further as noted hereinabove, the State is not powerless. If any condition is violated, it can take action under provisions of the Act. In any event, suo moto cancellation of conversion order by Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law. In the circumstances, these petitions merit consideration and hence the following;
ORDER (i) Petitions are allowed; and (ii) Order dated 01.03.2016 is set-aside, liberty is reserved to the State to take action in case of any violation.
9. In view of disposal of these petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV