Ajesh Kumar Shankar Four | AKS Law Associates

Ajesh Kumar Shankar

MANU/KA/3858/2015

Equivalent Citation: 2015(6)KarLJ445, 2016(1)KCCR377

Equivalent Citation : 2015 (6)KarLJ 445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2015 (KLR-CON)

Decided On: 18.08.2015

Appellants: S.N. Sinha

Vs.

Respondent: State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram:

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

Counsels:

For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ajesh Kumar S., Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: E.R. Diwakar, Additional Government Advocate ORDER

ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. The lis brought before Court lies in a narrow compass. The core question for decision making is whether endorsement dated 6-12-2014 Annexure-A of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, rejecting petitioner’s application dated 30-6-2014 for permission to divert the use of agricultural land measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No. 142/1B1 of Jodi Pattandur Agrahara Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk is in accordance with Section 95(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘KLR Act’) and if illegal whether petitioner is entitled to a deemed permission under sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the ‘KLR Act’? Facts not in dispute, petitioner’s application for permission under Section 95(2) is dated 30-6-2014. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section (3) of Section 95 may refuse such permission to divert on grounds that the diversion is likely to defeat the provisions of any land for the time being in force or that it is likely to cause public nuisance or that it is not in the interest of general public or that the occupant is unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions that may be imposed under sub-section (4). In the instant case the endorsement dated 6-12-2014 Annexure-A states that the reason for rejection is the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk did not furnish information called for in regard to petitioner’s application. Therefore, the endorsement dated 6-12- 2014 not disclosing any of the grounds for rejection under sub-section (3) of Section 95 is illegal.

2. Sub-section (5) of Section 95 reads thus:

“(5) Where the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of his decision on the application made under sub-section (2) within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of the application, the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted.”

3. In the admitted fact that petitioner’s application is dated 30-6-2014, it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to inform the petitioner of his decision on the application within four months from the date of receipt of the application, in other words by the 30th October, 2014. The endorsement dated 6-12-2014 Annexure-A admittedly beyond the period of four months as prescribed by the statute, is void ab initio.

4. The Revised Master Plan, 2015, it is submitted, declares the land in question to fall within the zone for residential use.

5. If regard is had to the deeming provision as contained in sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the KLR Act, it is needless to state that the permission applied for by the petitioner in his application dated 30-6-2014 noticed supra is deemed to have been granted. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A, endorsement is quashed and it is declared that permission sought for by the petitioner is deemed to have been granted under sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the KLR Act. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner to determine the conversion fee payable and issue challan to the petitioner by the 2nd September, 2015 and on payment of the said fee, there afterwards comply with the procedure without delay.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Also Read : Ajesh kumar Shankar Three