The Karnataka High Court in the case Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner And others observed and has directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department in order to institute the mechanism for capturing the progress of applications which are filed as stated under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act for conversion.
The Single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi in the case observed and has stated that this court came across several matters where the applications which had been filed for conversion have not been acted upon by the concerned authority resulting in the unnecessary litigation.
The court in the case stated that the Department in the case directed in order to institute the mechanism of capturing the applications, which includes (i) the date of application, (ii) the time taken for disposal thereof. Thus, such details may be web hosted on the website of the concerned Deputy Commissioner.
The Department in the case observed and stated that it is also required to mention the date on which the deemed conversion comes into effect in terms of Section 95(5) of the said Act. Therefore, the said provision stipulates that if the Deputy Commissioner fails to inform the applicant of the decision taken by it on an application made as stated under Section 95, thus, which being within the period of four months from the date of receipt of the application and the permission applied for is deemed to have been granted.
In the present case, the said direction was given while the court allowed the petition filed by one Abdul Rehman. An application is filed by the petitioner under Section 95(2) of the Act, wherein seeking for conversion of his land from agricultural to non-agricultural, residential purpose in 2020. The said court in the case raised an objection by the Revenue Inspector wherein it stated that there was a loan on the said property.
Further, the court repaid the said loan and a reconveyance deed came to be executed in August 2022 Subsequent thereto, thus, the petitioner gave several representations for consideration of the application for conversion and the respondent took no action. The petitioner approached the court seeking direction to the respondent to consider his representation.
It has also been stated by the court as stated under Section 95(5) with regards to the deemed conversion would also apply once compliance with any of the objections has been completed by the applicant, while giving of the time period of four months to the Deputy Commissioner to raise any further objections for the conversion.
However, no objection was raised in this case after the earlier objection had been complied with by the petitioner, the court stated that the Section 95(5) of the Act would come into play.
Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to issue a formal conversion order within six weeks and the court allowed the appeal.
The counsel, Advocate Liyaqat Fareed Ustad appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, HCGP Maya T R represented for respondent.
