1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Bangalore, in Appeal No. 1418 of 1969 (MLR) dated 31-12-1969 and the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. in BB/LNA. 1/2452 dated 19-8-1969.
2. The few facts relevant for our present purpose are as follows: The petitioners are the owners of S. No. 1375/2A of Belgaum, situate on the outskirts of the City. They applied on 10-5-1968 to the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum. for permission to use 28 guntas 12 1/2 annas extent of that land for a non-agricultural purpose. It is their case that a plan was submitted in regard to the said land for construction of a building for a 'commercial' purpose. The Deputy Commissioner granted permission on 13-9-1968 in his Order No. RB/ LNASR. I. in exercise of his powers under Sections 95 and 98 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. 1964. The petitioners, thereafter applied to the Municipal Commissioner, Belgaum, for the issue of a licence for erecting the necessary building and installing a 'Granulating' (Stonecrusbing) Machine. Consequently, the said machinery came to be installed. On 20-2-19G9, the Tahsildar Belgaum. respondent-2 herein, issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why action should not be taken against them for having contravened the conditions attached to the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner for the use of the land for a non-agricultural purpose. On 5-3-1969 the Deputy Commissioner. Belgaum, in his letter No. RB/LNA. I 2452, called upon the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken against them in accordance with the terms and conditions under which permission for non-agricultural use was granted. It was specifically stated therein that the petitioners had contravened condition No- 6 of the terms and conditions of such grant. It was also stated therein that the hearing of the case had been set down to 18-3-1969 at 3 p.m., at Belgaum and if the petitioners desired to be heard in person they should present themselves on that day.
The petitioners furnished reply, a copy of which is produced herewith as Ex. G.. wherein they have contended that they had not contravened condition No. 6 and that if any such contravention had in fact taken place, the same might be condoned and regularised. It is relevant to observe that they have not asked for a personal hearing in any case. The matter was considered by the Deputy Commissioner and an order was made on 19-8-1969 to the effect that the petitioners had contravened Condition No. 6 of the Order granting permission, and therefore, he directed them to remove the 'Granulating' machine within three months from the date of that Order and also to pay a penalty of Rs. 100/-within one month from the date of the receipt of intimation of the said order. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal Nos. 1408 and 1418 of 1969 (MLR) and were unsuccessful therein. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Two contentions were urged in support of the petition by Sri G. D. Shirgurkar. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. They are : (1) that in the plan submitted to the Deputy Commissioner. Belgaum, it was specifically mentioned that the buildings were intended for 'commercial' purposes, and therefore, the installation of the machinery therein was permissible and there was no contravention of condition No. 6 attached to the grant of permission for the conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes; and (2) that in view of the fact that permission is granted by the Municipal Commissioner, Belgaum. for the erection and installation of the building and the machinery, within the meaning of condition No 7 of the grant in their favour made by the Deputy Commissioner, no blame could be attached to the petitioners on the ground of any contravention of condition No. 6 had occurred. In other words, condition No. 6 and No. 7 must be read together and condition No. 6 would stand overridden if condition No. 7 was complied with.
4. We are of the opinion that none of the above contentions should prevail and the petition, therefore, has to fail.
5. Before adverting to the above contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant portions of the Order of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to the petitioners. The portions of that Order reads thus:
'Permission, is hereby granted to Sri (1) B. S. Irannawar. (2) D. S. Irannawar of Belgaum the occupant of S. No. 1375/2A (Part) of Belgaum to convert an area of 28 guntas 12 1/2 annas comprised in the said S. No. to non-agricultural purpose and to construct godown buildings thereon in accordance with the plans produced by him along with his application dated 10-5-1968 on the following conditions:
5. He shall construct the building according to the plans produced by him which he will hereafter get approved in accordance with condition No. 7 below within a period of 3 years and no addition or alteration shall be made therein without the prior permission of the City Municipal Council, Belgaum, in writing.
6. He shall not use the land for any purpose other than the one for which this permission is granted without the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner in writing.
7. He shall obtain the previous permission of the City Municipal council. Belgaum or any other local authority as the case may be before construction of the buildings and shall also observe the building regulations mentioned in the bye-laws/Mysore Panchayats Control of Erection of Buildings Rules, 1960 if any framed by the said Municipality or local body.
* * * **'
6. It is clear from the above portions of the Order granting permission, that the petitioners are permitted to construct a 'Godown' building according to the plans furnished. It is further clear from condition No. 6, that he shall not use the land for any purpose other than the one for which the said permission had been granted. Under Condition No. 7 they are enjoined to comply with the requirements of the Mysore Panchayats Control of Erection of Buildings Rules. 1969 and such other regulations before putting up the construction.
7. We shall now advert to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. It is no doubt true as contended for and on behalf of the petitioners that the plans furnished refer to a building for 'commercial' purposes. From this it would not necessarily follow that the petitioners would be entitled to Erection and install machinery for 'industrial' purposes. Be that as it may, it is clear from the Order that permission had been expressly granted only for the purpose of construction of a 'godown' building. In ordinary parlance a 'go-down' could mean merely a 'Warehouse' used for storage purposes. The fact that in the plan a 'commercial' purpose had been indicated would not enable the petitioners to get over the restriction placed in the permission properly granted by the Deputy Commissioner. Belgaum. When it is established or admitted that the condition imposed under Section 95 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act while granting permission to use an agricultural land for a specific purpose is violated by diverting the land for a different purpose, the Deputy Commissioner will have the jurisdiction to take appropriate action under Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, The impugned Order, therefore, is one passed according to law. Hence, this contention has to be rejected.
8. The next contention urged relates to the effect of the permission granted by the Municipal Commissioner Belgaum. In this regard, we are unable to accept the contention that condition No. 7 would have an overriding effect on condition No. 6. All that condition No. 7 enjoins is that the petitioners should comply with the Local Self Government Regulations regarding buildings, installations and such other matters. A mere compliance with such regulations would not enable the petitioners to divert the use of the premises in contravention of condition No. 6 of the Order granting the permission in question by the Deputy Commissioner. Moreover, prescription under condition No. 7 is merely an additional requirement to be satisfied by the petitioners if need be. This would not absolve them from the responsibility of complying with condition No. 6. In our view, reading of the Order granting permission as a whole, the petitioners would not be entitled to deviate from the purpose specified in the order granting permission. We are also clearly of the view that the petitioners have contravened condition No. 6 by installing a machinery for an industrial purpose. This contention has also to fail.
9. There is one other contention urged on behalf of the petitioners based on Section 37 and Rule 6 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the rules framed thereunder. The contention, in effect, was that there should have been an enquiry into the matter. This contention has not been raised either in the reply furnished to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner or in the affidavit filed before us in support of the Writ Petition. Moreover, we are of the view that Rule 6. relied on by the petitioners merely provides for procedure to be followed by Revenue Officers in conducting enquiries other than formal or summary. It provides that evidence should be recorded in full and that the opinion or decision of the officer holding the enquiry should be recorded invariably in his own handwriting, and should be read over and interpreted and admitted as correct. We also fail to see how this provision is attracted to the instant case. It is to be seen that the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner had not asked for any enquiry at all, and they have merely to contend themselves by taking the stand that condition No. 6 had not been violated. Hence we are of the opinion that there is no substance in this contention too.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
11. Shri Shirgurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioners for removing the machinery in compliance with the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. We do not think that this is a matter in which we should exercise our discretion to grant some time to the petitioners for that purpose. It is, however, open to the petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner or any other authority competent to act, for necessary relief in this behalf.
12. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.