STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. A SIDRAMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is by the State Government challenging the order of the karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) passed in Appeal No. 542 of 1997, dated on 3-9-1998.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 9-5-1994 levying he compounding fee at Rs. 18,78,525/- under Rule 107 of the Karnataka Land revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'), since the respondent has used the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose without obtaining the permission as required under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The respondent, after he came to know of the said order, filed a petition for review of the order. The said petition was also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 22-1 -1996. As against this order the respondent preferred an Appeal No. 102 of 1996 before the KAT. In the said appeal the Tribunal declined to grant any interim order. This has made the petitioner to come to this Court by way of filing W. P. No. 9839 of 1996. This Court passed an interim order staying the order of the Deputy Commissioner pending disposal of the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the appeal filed by the respondent before the K A T was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. After remission, the Deputy Commissioner has again passed an order determining the penalty for using the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose at Rs. 18,78,525/ -. This order was again challenged by the respondent by way of an appeal before the KAT in Appeal No. 542 of 1997. The Tribunal after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty levied holding that the respondent has used the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose by virtue of the deemed permission since the deputy Commissioner did not pass the order within four months. This order has been questioned by the State Government in this writ petition.

(3.) IN reply to this submission, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that when once an application is filed before the Tahsiidar and it is forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, it should be taken as an application filed in accordance with law and therefore, in the absence of any order passed by the deputy Commissioner within four months from the date of the application, there is a deemed permission as provided under Section 95 (5) of the Act. He further submits that the land in question comes within the Vijayanagar Steel planning Area of Hospet. If that is so, if the agricultural land is used for non-agricultural purpose after obtaining necessary permission as provided under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, no permission is required under Section 95 of the Act. In support of this contention he has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of special Deputy Commissioner v Narayanappa.