IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.44580/2017(KLR-CON) BETWEEN:
SMT.PARVATHAMMA, W/O LATE JYOTHILINGAPPA @ THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/479, RUDRESHWARA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, 6TH MAIN, VENKATARANGAPURA, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 003. ALSO AT KACHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.
(BY SRI HARISH H. V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPT. OF REVENUE, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONER 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DIST. BANGALORE-560 001.
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE DATED:24.8.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, WHEREIN, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAS WITHDRAWN THE ORDER OF CONVERSION DATED 27.6.2017.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs in the present Writ Petition:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or set aside the order/endorsement No.ALN(AJ)SR-33/16-17, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, dated 24.8.2017, wherein, the Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the order of conversion dated 27.6.2017 passed in ALN(AJ)SR-33/16-17, vide Annexure-A.
b) Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to restore order of conversion dated 27.6.2017 passed in ALN(AJ)SR-33/16-17, from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose with respect to land in Sy.No.96/3, measuring 18 guntas, and Sy.No.96/4, measuring 0-20.08 guntas, totally measuring 0.38.08 guntas of Kachanayakana halli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bengaluru District, vide Annexure-B.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.96/3 measuring 0-18 guntas and Sy.No.96/4 measuring 0-20-08 guntas, totally measuring 0.38.08 guntas of Kachanayakanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bengaluru district and he has applied for conversion of the said land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose. The Deputy Commissioner after obtaining permission from the competent authorities including the Anekal Planning Authority and after considering the entire material on record by an order dated 27.6.2017 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and permission was granted for conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose and the same was intimated to the petitioner. When things stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 24.8.2017 withdrawing the conversion order dated 27.6.2017 without issuing notice and without hearing the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition has contended that once the Deputy Commissioner passed the conversion order dated 27.6.2017, he has no authority to recall the said conversion order and he has no such power under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. On that ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order without issuing notice and without providing opportunity to the petitioner and hence the same is liable to be quashed. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.
5. Per contra, Smt. Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that once the Deputy Commissioner passes the conversion order exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, he becomes the functus officio and he cannot review the administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute.
6. The said submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.96/3 measuring 0-18 guntas and Sy.No.96/4 measuring 0-20-08 guntas, totally measuring 0.38.08 guntas of Kachanayakanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal taluk, Bengaluru district. It is also not in dispute that on the application filed by the petitioner, the said land came to be converted from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose by an order dated 27.6.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. When things stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner without issuing notice or without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 24.8.2017 withdrawn the conversion order dated 27.6.2017. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, once the Deputy Commissioner passes the order converting the land from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, he becomes functus offico and there can be no review of an administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute. Admittedly in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner has no power to recall its own order. If there is an error in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the aggrieved party has to file the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The same has not been done in the present case. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to recall his own order. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. In the identical circumstances, this court in the case of SMT. RATHNA .vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER in Writ Petition No.45634/2013 (KLR-CON) decided on 14.11.2013 held that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to review an administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.8.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A is quashed. Consequently the order dated 27.6.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for conversion of the land stands restored. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
Gss/- JUDGE