Karnataka HC Upholds Order To Remove Construction On Farmland Built Without Conversion, While Leaving Compounding Application Open

The petitioners challenged the Tahsildar’s order dated 02.02.2024 directing removal of encroachment and recovery of costs in relation to construction on agricultural land

They contended that the Deputy Commissioner had been approached under Section 96(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to compound the diversion, and that the Tahsildar’s order should be set aside pending consideration of that application

A Coordinate Bench had already dismissed petitions challenging the same Tahsildar’s order, finding no infirmity in the action concerning construction on agricultural land without conversion permission

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 concerns the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, including the requirement for conversion permission; the Coordinate Bench treated construction on agricultural land without such permission as contrary to that provision

The petitioners relied on Section 96(4), asserting that the Deputy Commissioner could compound unauthorised diversion, but the Court did not determine the merits or effect of that provision in these petitions

The Coordinate Bench also relied on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, in support of its conclusion that development of agricultural land without following conversion procedure could not be accepted by the authorities

The Court noted that the same Tahsildar’s order had already been considered by a Coordinate Bench, which found no infirmity in the action taken in respect of construction on agricultural land without conversion permission

In view of that decision, the Court declined to pass an order contrary to the Coordinate Bench’s ruling

It did not decide whether the Section 96(4) application warranted compounding or affected the Tahsildar’s order; it left that application for consideration according to law

The application before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 96(4) was left open for consideration in accordance with law