DOULATRAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Commissioner v Narayanappa, the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent 2, dated 5-3-1990 by which levy of conversion fine has been imposed upon him while deciding his application in terms of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1965, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is contended that the amendment made in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act vide Act No. 2 of 1991 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Alternatively it is submitted that as the Amending Act has not validated the earlier actions taken under the unamended Section 95 of the Act, the same do not affect rights of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that, the petitioner who is the owner of land measuring 1 acre in Block No. 333/2 of Bhairadevarakoppa in Hubli Taluk, filed an application under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act for conversion which was disposed of by the impugned order after demanding from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,890/- as conversion fine. The said amount of fine was deposited on 9-3-1990. The petitioner claims to have subsequently known that no order of conversion was necessary in view of the judgment in Special Deputy Commissioner's case, supra, and the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. He applied for refund of the amount which was rejected by the respondents vide Annexure-B. It is contended that the respondents were not empowered to collect any amount from the petitioners or any other citizens under the then prevalent law.

(3.) While interpreting the unamended Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this Court in Narayanappa's case, supra, held: