S M RUDRASWAMY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to collect the conversion charges from the petitioner concerning Sy. No. 80/7C measuring 1 acre 9 guntas situated at Hiriyoor village, Chitradurga District. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari and quashing the order-Annexure 'D' dated 28-9-1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are: that the petitioner, who claims to be the owner in possession of Sy. No. 80/7C measuring 1 acre 9 guntas situated at Hiriyoor Village, Chitradurga District, had applied under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, seeking his permission for conversion of the land with respect to the purposes thereto from residential to industrial purpose in view of the predominant use of that land. The application was originally made on 18-12-1989 and thereafter, with reference to that application vide letter dated 12-4-1990, the petitioner was informed that the application had been deferred in view of the fact that the land is reserved for residential purpose and not for industrial area. Deferring here appears to be tantamounts to refusal to grant permission and rejecting the application for the time being. The petitioner has further stated that, on 7-3-1991, he made another application requesting him to consider his case for being permitted to change the user of the land from residential to industrial purpose keeping in view the subsequent developments viz., the permission granted by the Town Planning Department in that regard. A copy of that application has been annexed as Annexure 'B'. According to the petitioner's case, on petitioner's application dated 7-3-1991, the Town Planning Department, by its letter dated 21-3-1991 gave its opinion to the respondent informing him that, after spot inspection, the area has been developed for industrial activity and so he expressed the opinion that the earlier order mentioning that the area has been earmarked for residential purpose" is withdrawn and now the permission for change of the land for use of industrial purpose can be given. The petitioner's case is that more than 4 months have lapsed i.e., the period of 4 months was allowed to expire and no order was passed either rejecting or allowing the application of the petitioner for conversion. It is only after the expiry of 6 months period that the opposite party has informed the petitioner that petitioner's application dated 7-3-1991 has been rejected including the opinion of the Town Planning Department.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed. So, as regards the factual position, it is admitted that no order was passed on the application dated 7-3-1991 for a period of 4 months and not only 4 months, but 6 months by the authority concerned.