The Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka land revenue act, 1964, (karnataka act no. 12 of 1964) - section 95 -- power of the government to demand conversion fine payable under section 95 in respect of the lands earmarked for residential purpose in c.d.p. under the provisions of karnataka town and country planning act, 1961. held the government has power to demand conversion fine. - karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 sections 174 to 178: [p.d.dinakaran, cj & v.g.sabhahit,j] objection as to erection and unveiling of poet-saint-thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake held, the decisions to erect and unveil the statues of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore and great poet sarvajna at chennai have been taken at the highest level between both the governments, viz., government of karnataka and government of tamil nadu, of course, with the due approval of the respective corporations, viz., corporation of bangalore and corporation of chennai, particularly, in view of the due approval of the corporation of bangalore for erecting and unveiling of statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore, and that, functions are also being organised by both the government of karnataka and the government of tamil nadu jointly for erecting statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore on 9th august, 2009 and statute of great poet sarvajna at chennai on 13th august, 2009, there is no irregularity or illegality in the same.undoubtedly, both the great poets have contributed much to the society to uphold the morality and above all, human dignity, cutting across caste, creed, language, religion and whatsoever. that apart, the proposal of erecting and unveiling of statues of great poets thiruvallavur and sarvajna at bangalore and chennai, respectively, would, as satisfied by both the corporations, enhance the brotherhood of neighbouring states. in the absence of any violation of rules or provision of law, much less irregularity or illegality, there is no, reason to entertain the above writ petition. hence, the writ petition fails and therefore, dismissed.if any third party resort to any agitation or bandh or whatsoever, the state shall have free-hand to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law. orderchandrashekaraiah, j. 1. in all these petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the demand relating to conversion fine payable under section 95 of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (for short 'the act 1964) is without authority of law and the government has no jurisdiction to demand the same and also for other reliefs.2. the petitioners are the societies registered under the provisions of the karnataka co-operative societies act, the petitioners requested the stated government to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land for their benefit for the purpose of providing residential sites to its members. the state government before initiating the proceedings called upon the societies to pay certain amount towards cost of acquisition which includes conversion fine payable under the provisions of the act, 1964. in addition the societies are also required to pay certain amount towards establishment charges and audit charges. in these petitions the petitioners challenged the demand made by the state government towards cost of acquisition relating to conversion fine, establishment charges and audit charges. the petitioners at the time of argument confined their arguments only towards conversion fine and they have not pressed insofar as the payment towards establishment charges and audit charges, obviously because the government had to spend certain amount towards establishment charges and audit in order to complete the acquisition proceedings.3. sri. t.s. ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the state government has no authority to demand payment towards conversion fine relying upon section 14 of the karnataka town and country planning act, 1961 (for short 'the act 1961). it is in the submission of sri t.s. rarnachandra, that the land which is proposed for acquisition is earmarked for a residential purpose in the c.d.p. published under the act, 1961 and that the same shall not be used for any other purpose other than residential purpose except with the written permission of the planning authority. in view of this, it is contended that as the lands which were the subject matter of notifications issued under the la act, are all earmarked or reserved for residential purpose in the c.d.p. and the paid land cannot be used for any purpose other than the residential purpose; therefore, the question of payment of conversion fine for the purpose of using the land for non-agricultural purpose under section 95 of the act, 1964 does not arise and therefore the demand made by the state government calling upon the petitioner to pay the conversion fine towards cost of acquisition is without authority of law. in support of this contention he relied upon the decision of this court in special deputy commissioner v. narayanappa, : ilr1988kar1398 wherein it is held as follows:-'in view of the above provision a written permission for change of land use in respect of land falling within the bangalore city planning area and covered by the cdp is mandatory. this subsequent notification also ousts the authority of the deputy commissioner under section 95 of the land revenue act in respect of lands falling within the planning area.'in reply to the said contention, sri. k.p. ashok kumar, learned government advocate submitted that the above said decision came up for consideration before the division bench in the case of doulatraj v. the state of karnataka and ors., w.p. 35179/92 dd 21st august 1996 wherein the division bench considering the subsequent amendment introduced to the act, 1961 by act 2/1991 has held that the deputy commissioner has got right to call upon the person to pay the conversion fine if he wishes to divert the agricultural land to any other purposes. the facts of the said case are - the petitioner in the said writ petition is the owner of the land filed an application under section 95 of the act, 1964 for conversion. the said application was allowed imposing a conversion fine of rs. 10,890/-. the same was paid pursuant to the order of conversion on 9.3.1990. thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the deputy commissioner for the refund of the amount relying upon the decision of this court in the case of narayanappa referred to above. the said application was rejected. this order of rejection was challenged on the ground that the deputy commissioner has no authority to collect conversion fine. the division bench (relying on the abovesaid decision) rejected the said writ petition in view of the amendment to section 95 of the act, 1964 by act 2/91, which was subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment in the narayanappa's case (supra). admittedly, the lands which were proposed to be acquired or acquired by the state government for the benefit of the societies are all agricultural lands. under section 95 of the act, 1964, no person is permitted to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without obtaining the permission of the deputy commissioner. sub-section (2) of section 95 of the act, 1964 reads as follows:-'2) if any occupant of land assessed or held the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose he shall 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force apply for permission to the deputy commissioner who may subject to the provisions of this section and the rules made under this act, refuse permission or grant it on such condition as he may think fit.'the insertion of the words 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force' is only to enable the deputy commissioner to collect conversion fine in the event if the agricultural land is permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose, even though the said land use is shown in the c.d.p. published under the provisions of the act of 1961 as residential. it is also necessary to mention that the legislature introduced, on amendment by karnataka act 2/1991 to section 14 of the act, 1961 by inserting the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 which reads as follows:-'provided that where the use or change of land use under this section needs the diversion of agricultural land to non agricultural purposes, such use or change of use shall not be permitted unless permission is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 for such diversion.'the reading of the said proviso it is clear that any person who intends to have the change of land use as contemplated under section (2) of section 14 of the act, 1961 is required to obtain permission from the deputy commissioner to use-, the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose under section 95 of the act, 1964. this proviso makes it clear that even though the land is covered under the cdp, conversion fine is required to be paid to get the change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural use, as provided under section 95 of the act, 1964. the purpose of acquisition is to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose by the society. therefore, the petitioners-societies are required to pay the conversion fine as contemplated under section 95 of the act, 1964, to the deputy commissioner before it uses the land for non-agricultural purpose. when such being the case, there is nothing wrong on the part of the state government in calling upon the petitioners to pay the conversion fine which was payable by the societies to the deputy commissioner.accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are rejected. rule issued is discharged.

Judgment:
ORDER

Chandrashekaraiah, J.

1. In all these petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the demand relating to conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act 1964) is without authority of law and the Government has no jurisdiction to demand the same and also for other reliefs.

2. The petitioners are the societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, the petitioners requested the Stated Government to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land for their benefit for the purpose of providing residential sites to its members. The State Government before initiating the proceedings called upon the societies to pay certain amount towards cost of acquisition which includes conversion fine payable under the provisions of the Act, 1964. In addition the societies are also required to pay certain amount towards establishment charges and audit charges. In these petitions the petitioners challenged the demand made by the State Government towards cost of acquisition relating to conversion fine, establishment charges and audit charges. The petitioners at the time of argument confined their arguments only towards conversion fine and they have not pressed insofar as the payment towards establishment charges and audit charges, obviously because the Government had to spend certain amount towards establishment charges and audit in order to complete the acquisition proceedings.

3. Sri. T.S. Ramachandra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Government has no authority to demand payment towards conversion fine relying upon Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the ACT 1961). It is in the submission of Sri T.S. Rarnachandra, that the land which is proposed for acquisition is earmarked for a residential purpose in the C.D.P. published under the Act, 1961 and that the same shall not be used for any other purpose other than residential purpose except with the written permission of the planning authority. In view of this, it is contended that as the lands which were the subject matter of notifications issued under the LA Act, are all earmarked or reserved for residential purpose in the C.D.P. and the paid land cannot be used for any purpose other than the residential purpose; therefore, the question of payment of conversion fine for the purpose of using the land for non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Act, 1964 does not arise and therefore the demand made by the State Government calling upon the petitioner to pay the conversion fine towards cost of acquisition is without authority of law. In support of this contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER v. NARAYANAPPA, : ILR1988KAR1398 wherein it is held as follows:-

'In view of the above provision a written permission for change of land use in respect of land falling within the Bangalore City Planning Area and covered by the CDP is mandatory. This subsequent notification also ousts the authority of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act in respect of lands falling within the Planning Area.'

In reply to the said contention, Sri. K.P. Ashok Kumar, Learned Government Advocate submitted that the above said decision came up for consideration before the Division Bench in the case of DOULATRAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P. 35179/92 DD 21st August 1996 wherein the Division Bench considering the subsequent amendment introduced to the Act, 1961 by Act 2/1991 has held that the Deputy Commissioner has got right to call upon the person to pay the conversion fine if he wishes to divert the agricultural land to any other purposes. The facts of the said case are - the petitioner in the said Writ Petition is the owner of the land filed an application under Section 95 of the Act, 1964 for conversion. The said application was allowed imposing a conversion fine of Rs. 10,890/-. The same was paid pursuant to the order of conversion on 9.3.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for the refund of the amount relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Narayanappa referred to above. The said application was rejected. This order of rejection was challenged on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to collect conversion fine. The Division Bench (relying on the abovesaid decision) rejected the said Writ Petition in view of the amendment to Section 95 of the Act, 1964 by Act 2/91, which was subsequent to the pronouncement of the Judgment in the Narayanappa's case (supra). Admittedly, the lands which were proposed to be acquired or acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the societies are all agricultural lands. Under Section 95 of the Act, 1964, no person is permitted to use agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, 1964 reads as follows:-

'2) If any occupant of land assessed or held the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose he shall 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner who may subject to the provisions of this Section and the rules made under this Act, refuse permission or grant it on such condition as he may think fit.'

The insertion of the words 'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force' is only to enable the Deputy Commissioner to collect conversion fine in the event if the agricultural land is permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose, even though the said land use is shown in the C.D.P. published under the provisions of the Act of 1961 as residential. It is also necessary to mention that the Legislature introduced, on amendment by Karnataka Act 2/1991 to Section 14 of the Act, 1961 by inserting the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 14 which reads as follows:-

'Provided that where the use or change of land use under this section needs the diversion of agricultural land to non agricultural purposes, such use or change of use shall not be permitted unless permission is obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for such diversion.'

The reading of the said proviso it is clear that any person who Intends to have the change of land use as contemplated under Section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 1961 is required to obtain permission from the Deputy Commissioner to use-, the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose under Section 95 of the Act, 1964. This proviso makes it clear that even though the land is covered under the CDP, conversion fine is required to be paid to get the change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural use, as provided under Section 95 of the Act, 1964. The purpose of acquisition is to use the said land for non-agricultural purpose by the society. Therefore, the petitioners-societies are required to pay the conversion fine as contemplated under Section 95 of the Act, 1964, to the Deputy Commissioner before it uses the land for non-agricultural purpose. When such being the case, there is nothing wrong on the part of the State Government in calling upon the petitioners to pay the conversion fine which was payable by the societies to the Deputy Commissioner.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petitions are rejected. Rule issued is discharged.