Smt. K. Mahadevamma vs The Deputy Commissioner and The Tahsildar

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing survey number 34/1 measuring 34 guntas located in Chamundi Hill Village, Mysore. The case of the petitioner is that she acquired title to this land through a sale deed dated 21.3.2001 executed in her favour by the erstwhile owner one B.S. Ramachandran and his family members.

It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter the revenue entries stood in the name of the petitioner. It appears writ petitioner had sought for permission to convert this agricultural revenue land for non-agricultural purpose, particularly, to build a commercial structure to start a Vegetarian Hotel in the subject land as it is claimed that the subject land was located close to Chamundi Hills Temple and had great tourist attraction etc. It is the version of the petitioner that the Village Panchayat with in which limits the subject land is located had also issued NOC for the conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use.

Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 23.4.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mysore, appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal u/s 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short ''the Act''). The contention urged by the petitioner is that the application was not disposed of within one year and no valid reasons had been given for refusal to permit the conversion on any other grounds. The tribunal went into the question in some detail and thought it proper to condone the delay, but on examination of the matter on the merits, found that there is no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner so as to change the land usage, not only in conformity with the plan prepared by the MUDA and MUDA had also objected for such permission. The subject land being located near the lake and the commercial development of the land posing a threat to the lake and the environment, was also examined and therefore, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is against these orders the present writ petition.

What is urged in this writ petition is that the Deputy Commissioner without due application of mind has passed the order mechanically and has refused permission for conversion of the subject land and having taken more than one year for disposal of the application, the application should be deemed to have been permitted and ordered and in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to later on reject the application by issue of impugned endorsement dated 23.4.2003 (copy at Annexure C). The tribunal has also not noticed that the order having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner after expiry of one year period, petitioner should be deemed to have been permitted for the change of land usage etc.

Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents have been represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA.

It is submitted by Smt. S. Susheela, learned AGA appearing for the respondents that the tribunal has passed an elaborate order giving the reasons as to why the appeal is to be dismissed; that a positive order of rejection having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, no deemed provision can operate, with the failure of the petitioner before the Tribunal, who has also looked into the merits of the matter and found no occasion to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner and as such there is no occasion for interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction.

On examination of the merits of the matter, I find it is not as though the Deputy Commissioner or the Tribunal have not given any reasons in the orders based on which they have rejected permission for conversion. If the authorities having regard to the location of the subject land and environment angle, find it is not feasible or right to grant permission for conversion of subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, no exception can be taken to such orders. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders either to set aside the orders or grant permission. It is therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.