DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI Vs. ROBERT DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the deputy commissioner of kodagu district assailing the judgment of the learned single judge. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent applied for conversion of land in s. No. 42-a in block No. 17 of madikeri town municipal council and to make necessary changes in the revenue records as well as the municipal records. On 21-6-1991 before the first appellant herein, it was transferred to second respondent for consideration. The respondent filed an application on 21-6-1991 for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use by affixing Rs. 2/- stamp. On 3-7-1991 the application was forwarded to the revenue inspector for recovering the remaining stamp duty. The records show that by 21-10-1991 the respondent had not paid the deficit stamp duty and he paid the stamp duty afterwards. On 17-1-1992 the respondent was examined. The respondent filed a statement wherein he stated that he will file the required documents at the relevant time. On 12-2-1992 the tahsildar issued a notice directing the respondent to produce the jamabhandhi record and an affidavit stating that there are no tenants on the land and there are no takavi loans on the land and also to file his statement. There is no dispute that all the above said documents were not filed by the respondent. Therefore, the authority rejected his application, vide Order dated 9-11-1993. Assailing the said Order, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE learned single judge allowed the application on the ground that if permission is not granted within four months from the date of the application, after lapse of four months, deeming provision under Section 95 (5) of the Karnataka land revenue ACT (hereinafterwards referred to as 'the act' for short) will come into play and permission is deemed to be granted, and allowed the writ petition. Against that Order, the present appeal is filed by the respondent-authorities in the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deeming provision under Section 95 (5) of the ACT comes into play only where the application is in Order and where all the required documents for the grant of conversion are attached to it. Otherwise the application is deemed not in order. In other words, it cannot be treated as an application under Section 95 (2) of the act. Once the application is not in Order, there is no obligation on the authority to grant the permission and they can reject the application as the application is not in order. The learned single judge erred in holding that the deeming Section 95 (5) comes into play and deemed permission is granted in the case for the non-action of the officials as per the provisions under Section 95 (5) of the act. Therefore, the appeal has to be allowed.