Kirloskar Electric Company Limited vs The State of Karnataka and another. Writ Petition 106705/2019. Decided on 30 July 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/341844/1/WP106705-19-08-09-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 16.Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, the following questions arise for consideration. i Whether the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner is a competent authority to initiate the proceedings to terminate the grant and to resume the land? ii. Whether provisions of Section 95 and 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are applicable?
Decisions in ILR 1974 KAR 1313; Abdul Basheer Sab v/s State of Mysore and others, ILR 2002 KAR 4264; the Deputy Commissioner and another V/s V.B.T.Mallikarjun and others, ILR 1988 KAR 1398; Special Deputy Commissioner V/s Narayanappa, ILR 2005 KAR 60; J.M.Narayana and others V/s Corporation of the City of Bangalore and others, (2006) 12 SCC 33; Siemens Ltd. V/s State of Maharashtra and others.(2010) 13 SCC 427; Oryx Fisheries Private Limited V/s Union of India and others, (2015) 3 SCC 695; Joint Collector and another V/s D.Narsing Rao and others, (2018) 6 KLJ 792, Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 12 SCC 527; Chhedi Lal Yadav and others v/s Hari Kishore Yadav (D) through LRs and others , in (1995)1SCC295 in the case of State of Karnataka and others V/ s Shankar Textiles Mills Ltd , ILR 1974 SCC online Kar 124 : ILR 1974 Kar 1313; Abdul Basheer Sab V/ s State of Mysore and others, considered.
25. There is no dispute that the property in question is included in the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan/Master Plan 2021 and it is situated within the Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation Area. Therefore section 4(4) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is applicable and the property tax is recovered from the Municipal Corporation.
26. Since the land is not an agricultural and is put to industrial use, it is not required to be converted from industrial purpose to non agricultural purpose. Therefore section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is not applicable. When section 95(2) of the Act is not applicable, consequently section 97 is also not applicable.
35. It is clear that section 97 of the Act can be invoked only if section 95(2) is applicable. To apply section 95(2) of the Act, the property should be an agricultural land assessed to the land revenue. In this case admittedly the land was converted to industrial purpose.
40. In identical circumstances, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Sections 14 and 24(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the case of Special Deputy Commissioner Vs. Narayanappa, reported in ILR 1988 KAR 1398 at paras 9, 12 and 13 held as under: …12. use of land falling within the area of ODPor CDP could be effected or undertaken only with the written permission of the Planning Authority. Further in view of the Section the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section95 of the Land Revenue Act gets ousted and such permission could be obtained or secured only from the Planning Authority under the Act.
42. In the present case admittedly, the land in question is within the corporation limits. Under these circumstances in view of the overriding effect of Town and Country Planning Act, the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Land Revenue Rules ceases to operate. The Deputy Commissioner has no power under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to grant or refuse permission. In view of Section 76(m), the change in land use of land within the corporation area or within the area ODP or CDP would be effected or undertaken only with the permission of the planning authority. Further in view of the section, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act gets ousted.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 