Failure to communicate a land-conversion decision within four months results in deemed permission.

The respondent sought conversion of 2 acres 13 guntas in Survey No. 59/2, Naubad Village, Bidar District, to non-agricultural use.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected her application, and the respondent successfully challenged that decision in a writ petition. The Single Judge held that conversion was deemed to have been granted and directed the Deputy Commissioner to issue a conversion certificate upon payment of the applicable charges.

The State appealed, arguing, among other things, that the respondent had an alternative appellate remedy and that the District Waqf Officer had objected to conversion on the ground that the land was waqf property.

1. Whether the respondent’s land was deemed converted under Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act because the Deputy Commissioner did not communicate a decision within four months.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s order granting deemed-conversion relief warranted interference in view of the State’s appeal, including its alternative-remedy and waqf-property objections.

Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides that where the Deputy Commissioner does not inform an applicant of the decision on an application under Section 95(2) within four months of its receipt, the requested permission is deemed to have been granted.

The Court also relied on S.M. Rudraswamy v. The Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1994 KAR 2958, and the Coordinate Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 20007 of 2022, which considered the deemed-conversion provision in relation to land in Survey No. 59/1.

The Court noted that the respondent’s conversion claim had been rejected only after the four-month period had expired. It therefore concluded that, by operation of Section 95(5), conversion had already been deemed granted when the rejection was issued.

The Court considered the Coordinate Bench’s ruling concerning Survey No. 59/1 and found the respondent entitled to similar treatment for Survey No. 59/2. It did not separately elaborate on the State’s alternative-remedy or waqf-property objections; instead, it affirmed the Single Judge’s order on the deemed-conversion ground.

It dismissed the State’s writ appeal and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.