Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Prabhavathi M.S. and Dr. Subramanya P.S., are the wife and son of late P.S. Srinivasamurthy, residents of Periyapatna Town. They own land in Sy.No.322/1 of Periyapatna Town, which was originally agricultural land. The land was converted to non-agricultural use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, vide order dated 30-06-2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur. Despite the conversion order, the revenue records continued to show the land as agricultural. The petitioners applied to the Chief Officer of the Town Municipal Council, Periyapatna (6th respondent) for transfer of khata in their names. The Chief Officer rejected the application by endorsement dated 11-07-2019, stating that the revenue records still showed the land as agricultural and therefore khata could not be transferred. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the endorsement and a direction to the respondents to transfer the khata. The petitioners argued that once conversion is granted, the municipal authority cannot refuse khata transfer based on revenue entries. The respondents contended that the revenue entries had not been updated and that the municipality could not act until the revenue records were corrected. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, particularly Sections 94, 95, and 96, and held that the municipal authority is bound by the conversion order and cannot refuse khata transfer solely on the ground that revenue records show the land as agricultural. The court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the Chief Officer to consider the application afresh in light of the conversion order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Khata Transfer - Conversion of Land - Sections 94, 95, 96 Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - The petitioners sought transfer of khata in respect of land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Chief Officer refused on the ground that revenue records still showed the land as agricultural. The High Court held that once conversion is granted, the municipal authority cannot refuse khata transfer based on revenue entries alone, as the conversion order is binding and the municipality must act in accordance with the conversion. (Paras 1-10) B) Municipal Law - Endorsement - Quashing - The impugned endorsement dated 11-07-2019 was quashed, and the Chief Officer was directed to consider the application for khata transfer afresh in light of the conversion order, within a specified period. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Officer of a Town Municipal Council can refuse to transfer khata in respect of land that has been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use, solely on the ground that the revenue records continue to show the land as agricultural?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 11-07-2019 is quashed. The 6th respondent/Chief Officer is directed to consider the application for khata transfer afresh in light of the conversion order dated 30-06-2018, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Khata transfer cannot be denied solely on basis of revenue entries when conversion order exists
- Municipal authorities must consider conversion order under Karnataka Municipalities Act
- 1964
- Writ petition maintainable against municipal endorsement
