ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. MOHAMMED AKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have come up for orders on Misc W No 8899 for direction, which is an application made by the writ petitioner under Order (sic) 226(3) of the Constitution of India [the word order should read as Article], seeking for the further relief through this application as under: To issue directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to expunge the remarks made in the official memorandum dated 4.9.2010 with reference to the pendency of the writ petition and issue a fresh official memorandum thereof.

(2.) BODY of the application indicates that it has become necessary for the petitioner to seek for this further relief in the context of the subsequent development that had taken place subsequent to the passing of the interim order by this court on 6-8-2010 reading as under: Interim stay as prayed for till the next date of hearing and indicating that after the production of interim order passed by this court, while fifth respondent did issue Official Memorandum dated 4-9-2010 [Annexure-A to the application], granting permission for conversion of the subject land for non-agricultural use with certain concessions, but with a further conditions that the order will be subject to the result of the above writ petition before this court and unless the petitioner obtains permission from the planning authority, Kanakapura for utilization of the land for which purpose alone the conversion order is passed and if the petitioner fails to obtain such a permission from the planning authority, conversion order will not be any avail to the petitioner, as well as other 11 routine conditions in such conversion orders.

(3.) SRI R Omkumar, learned AGA, appearing for the respondents, drawing attention to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to either the main prayer in the writ petition or any direction as sought for in the application; that the writ petition is a frivolous petition; that the scheme of industrial policy does not envisage a non-payment of conversion fine; that from the very beginning, it is not am exemption from payment of conversion fine, but the scheme is for payment of conversion fine on the permission to convert an agricultural land for non-agricultural use, but if the project in terms of the development of industry as per the industrial policy is in fact implemented, on and after the implementation, this is an enabling provision for such a person to claim reimbursement and that it is not even a refund, but reimbursement of the amount paid from the government and therefore submits that if the petitioner had not paid the conversion fine, there is no question conversion order being made effective or issued in favour of the petitioner without the initial payment etc.