MOHAMMED FAIZUDDIN, S/O MOHAMMED NOORUDDIN QAZI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.7 Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF REVENUE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.205512-13/2016 where under learned Single Judge has declined to quash the endorsement dated 09.01.2015 - Annexure -E ana endorsement dated 09/19.01.2015 - Annexure -F issued to petitioners by second respondent.

(2.) We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and perused the records.

(3.) Petitioners filed an application on 18.04.2014 under Sec. 92 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') seeking for conversion of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.32/2 Khata No.202 measuring 03 Acres 16 Guntas and Sy.No.32/5, Khata No.202 measuring 03 Acres 16 Guntas, both situate at Mupta Village, Chittapur Taluk, Kalaburagi District, which were said to have been purchased under two sale deeds dated 26.11.2013 - Annexures-A and B respectively. Said applications were accompanied by relevant documents and No-Objection Certificates issued from the concerned departments. Jurisdictional Revenue Inspector conducted spot inspection and submitted a report on 24.04.2014 to third respondent who in turn forwarded the same to jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 30.06.2014 with a recommendation that said lands in question can be converted to non agricultural - residential purposes as sought for, vide Annexures -C and D. Second respondent issued an endorsement dated 09.01.2015 and 19.01.2015 to the petitioner declining to accede to the prayer of petitioners on the ground that said lands would fall within the 'National Investment and Manufacturing Zone, Kalaburagi (NIMZ)'and a report to said effect had been submitted before State Cabinet on 28.11.2014 and State Government had proposed to establish Industrial Zone in Chittapur. In other words, second respondent - Deputy Commissioner declined to entertain the prayer of petitioners. Hence, petitioners being aggrieved by these two endorsements approached this Court, which was examined by learned Single Judge and on the ground of petitioners having an alternate remedy of appeal under Sec. 49 of the Act, dismissed the writ petitions by reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail alternate remedy of appeal. Hence this intra-Court appeal.