- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4657 OF 2015 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. K. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KADABAGERE VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-562 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BAHVAN BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THASILDHAR O/O THASILDHAR BANGALORE NORTH KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 001. 3. NELAMANGALA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY B.H. ROAD, CHANNAPPA LAYOUT NELAMANGALA-562 123. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 30.12.2013 AND THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 07.02.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE F & H RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. Captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned final notice wherein the authority has proceeded to levy fine on the ground that the petitioner/institution being an educational institution is guilty of diverting an agricultural land to educational purpose without securing permission from the planning authority. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner/an educational institution is the owner of Survey Nos.34/5 and 34/6 situated at Kadabagere village, Dasanapura Hobli-2, Bengaluru North Urban District, measuring 20 and 32 guntas respectively. The petitioner/Institution obtained conversion order at the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 hands of the Deputy Commissioner to be used for residential purpose by submitting an application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Pursuant to filing of several writ petitions and contempt proceedings, the Tahsildar visited the spot and recorded unauthorized construction to an extent of 18,128 sq.ft. This prompted the authorities to impose penalty of Rs.57.50/- per sq.ft. along with the differential amount of conversion fee of Rs.1,55,617/-. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 30.12.2013 was issued. Despite detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, the final notice dated 7.2.2014 was issued calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,97,977/-. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/planning authority. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the levy of fine by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 the authorities is without basis and the fine determined at the rate of Rs.57.50/- per sq.ft. is exorbitant and arbitrary. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) submitted that the petitioner institution had initially obtained a conversion order, authorizing the use of the property solely for residential purposes. However, contrary to the conditions outlined in the said conversion order, the petitioner proceeded to utilize the property for educational purposes by constructing educational facilities on the land. The learned AGA emphasized that this act constitutes a direct violation of the conversion order, as the petitioner failed to adhere to the specific purpose for which the land conversion was granted. Consequently, the authorities were compelled to impose penalties and fines for this unauthorized diversion of agricultural land. 6. Supporting the submissions made by the learned AGA, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 the Planning Authority, argued that the actions of the petitioner constituted a blatant misuse of the converted land. He highlighted that Rule 107-A of the Rules, 1966 explicitly empowers the authorities to levy fines and impose penalties in instances where the use of converted land deviates from the purposes specified in the conversion order. Drawing attention to the table appended to Rule 107-A, the learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the authorities were well within their jurisdiction to impose a fine at the rate of Rs. 57.50 per square foot for unauthorized non-residential use of land situated within the municipal limits of Bengaluru City. He further submitted that this computation of fines was in strict compliance with the statutory provisions and was neither arbitrary nor excessive. 7. Elaborating on the legal framework, the learned Standing Counsel explained that Rule 107-A of the Rules, 1966, in conjunction with Section 96(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 “KLR Act, 1964”), provides the authorities with the requisite powers to compound such violations and impose penalties based on the rates specified in the table. The rate of Rs. 57.50 per square foot, applicable to properties within Bengaluru City’s municipal limits, is prescribed under these provisions to address unauthorized usage for non-residential purposes. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that the fine imposed on the petitioner was neither disproportionate nor beyond the scope of the law but was instead a statutory consequence of the petitioner’s deviation from the original terms of the conversion order. 8. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties, this Court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel do not hold merit. A meticulous examination of Rule 107-A of the Rules, 1966, reveals that the authorities are empowered to impose fines and additional conversion fees for deviations from the original terms of the conversion order. The table appended - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 to Rule 107-A categorically specifies the rates applicable for such violations, particularly for properties situated within the Bengaluru Municipal Corporation limits and utilized for non-residential purposes without prior approval. The fine of Rs. 57.50 per square foot levied on the petitioner is in strict conformity with the prescribed statutory framework and cannot be deemed excessive or unauthorized. 9. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the imposition of the additional conversion fee and fine aligns with the procedural and substantive requirements of Rule 107-A of the Rules, 1966. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the authorities is upheld as lawful, and no interference is warranted in this matter. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1551 WP No. 4657 of 2015 ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) However, three month's time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount indicated in the impugned notice dated 30.12.2013 and the final notice dated 07.02.2014 as per Annexures-F and H respectively. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44