State Of Karnataka vs Sri.

Shivanand on 27 June, 2019

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Shivanand on 27 June, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar A.S
:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
R.P.No.159/2019
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. COMMISSIONER
DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY,
APMC ROAD, SANGAMESHWARA NAGARA,
BELAGAVI-590 001.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

AND CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT STONE CRUSHERS,
REGULATION COMMITTEE,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BELAGAVI-590 001.

5. THE TAHSILDAR,
SAVADATTI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 126. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VASANT FERNANDES, HCGP)

:2:

AND:

SRI. SHIVANAND
S/O. ISHWARAPPA MAMADAPUR,
AGED MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 130, NISHIGANDA PARK,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162370530/ 1

 State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Shivanand on 27 June, 2019

VINAYAKA NAGAR,
BELGAUM-591 108. ...RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF

CPC PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 08.01.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION No.23345/2018 (GM-MM-S) AND TO ALLOW THIS
REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO RESTORE THE
SAID WRIT PETITION TO THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
FOR FURTHER HEARING IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This review petition is filed for review of the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.23345/2018
whereunder writ petition came to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.03.2017 passed in
W.P.No.11780/2017 which is also not disputed by learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for review petitioners.

2. Since there is delay of 80 days in filing review petition, an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is filed along with application filed under Order XLVII Rule 3 read with Order XLI
Rule 3-A of CPC and IA-3/2019 for production of additional documents. In the normal course, we
would have issued notice on these applications and would have adopted a more liberal approach in
condoning the delay. However, to ascertain as to whether there is any need and necessity to issue
notice to the respondents, we have also looked into the entire case papers and find that issuance of
notice to the respondent would only be an exercise in futility and it would not serve any purpose for
the reasons indicated herein below.

3. Mr.Vasant Fernandes, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for review petitioners
would contend that concession made was on account of non-availability of factual aspects and writ
petition came to be disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing itself. Elaborating his
submission, he would contend that question of granting deemed conversion under Section 95

(a) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, would arise only in respect of an agricultural land and the
land in question even according to the vendor of the petitioner, was a 'B' Kharab land not assessed to
tax/revenue and as such, it would not partake the character of an agricultural land and therefore
question of granting any conversion muchless deemed conversion would not arise. He would also
further contend that issue relating to non-furnishing of 11E sketch was sought to be made out as a
ground for seeking conversion order by the petitioner which was not in issue at all.

4. Having regard to the said contention raised, we find that issue relating to the land not being
agricultural land cannot be accepted since there is no determination by the revenue authorities

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162370530/ 2

 State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Shivanand on 27 June, 2019

under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, determining or classifying the land in question as a
non-agricultural land or 'B' kharab land. Hence, said land finds an entry in the revenue records
which would partake the character of an agricultural land unless otherwise declared. As such, said
contention raised by learned Additional Government Advocate cannot be entertained and it stands
rejected.

5. Insofar as 2nd contention is concerned, we find there was no direction issued by this Court in that
regard and as such, it would pale to insignificance or it would recede to background.

6. In the light of aforestated facts, we are of the considered view that question of issuing notice to
respondents and calling upon them to appear before this Court for examining the review petition on
merits would not be of any use and as such, we hereby reject the application for condonation of
delay and consequently, review petition is dismissed.

Since the issue relating to Form No.11 is pending before the authorities, it is for the authorities to
take appropriate steps in that regard and no opinion is expressed by us in that regard.

SD/-

JUDGE SD/-

JUDGE Jm/-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/162370530/ 3