IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.Nos.65338-340/2016 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN NANJUNDAPPA K., S/O LATE K.DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT # 801/1, ITTANGUR ROAD, NEAR CHANDRAMOULESHWARA TEMPLE, SARJAPURA, BENGALURU 560 125. ... PETITIONER (By Sri REUBEN JACOB, ADV.) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.
2. R.VENKATACHALAIAH, S/O LATE S.RAMAIAH R/AT CHIKKA TIRUPATHI POST & VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1; Sri VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICAIL MEMORANDUM DATED 28.11.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEX-M, AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. A short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is, Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar – respondent No.1 herein was justified in law in canceling the order of conversion passed by him on 08.09.2016 in respect of lands in question by passing the impugned order on 28.11.2016?
2. Impugned order is produced at annexure-M. Perusal of the said order discloses that on an application filed by 2nd respondent – R. Venkatachalaiah, the Deputy Commissioner assumed jurisdiction in the matter and has persuaded himself to cancel the previous order passed by him according approval for conversion of lands bearing Sy.No.118/1 measuring 12 guntas, Sy.No.118/2 measuring 5 guntas and Sy.No.118/3 measuring 7 guntas totally measuring 24 guntas situated at Chikkatirupathi Village of Kolar District, for the purpose of establishing a Kalyana Mantapa.
3. At the request of petitioner who claimed absolute right over the property, the Deputy Commissioner after following all procedure has passed the order dated 08.09.2016 granting permission for conversion of lands in question from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. It appears that 2nd respondent – R. Venkatachalaiah made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner contending that he was the owner of the property and that there was a civil suit pending in the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner has taken note of the said representation and has passed the impugned order canceling the order of conversion granted.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT.RATHNA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER passed in W.P.No.45634/2013 on 14.11.2013, that once a decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner granting permission for conversion, he becomes functus officio and would not be entitled to sit in judgment over it to either modify it or cancel the same. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, at paragraph No.6 this Court has observed as under:
“That apart, the Act provides for appeal to be filed, from an original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the tribunal as per Section 49 of the Act. The second respondent ought to have availed that remedy. Nowhere in the Act is there a provision for cancellation of an order of conversion. The decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 in the case of Lakshman V/s. State of Karnataka (ILR 1995 Kar 1871) is not applicable to the present case as that decision arises under Section 24 of the Act where the Revenue Officers constitute a Revenue Court and Section 25 specifically provides for inherent power of a Revenue Court. But in the instant case, the administrative power of the Deputy Commissioner is exercised under Section 95 of the Act. Once the order is passed under that Section, the authority becomes functus officio. There can be no review of an administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute. This is unlike the case of exercise of a quasi judicial powers, wherein the power of review may be provided under the statute explicitly or could be read as part of the inherent powers of such an authority. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would not have passed the impugned order canceling the order of conversion granted on 08.08.2011. On this ground also, the impugned order is quashed”.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, judgment referred above is fully applicable. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner who had no power or authority to recall or revoke the order of conversion was not right and justified in passing the impugned order. Impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed and the order under challenge is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE VP