Karnataka High Court
M/S The Hamlet vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.15250 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. THE HAMLET
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
NO.11, KEMWELL HOUSE, TUMKUR ROAD
YESHWANTHAPURA-560 022.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
MR. ANURAG BAGARIA.
2. NABS TECHPART PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANY ACT 2013
HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR
SALARPURIA WINDSOR, 3
ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 042.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI
S/O LATE MANOHARCHAND SANCHETI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
2
MS BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 064.
4. MR. MUNAIAHA
S/O LATE LACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 157.
5. MR. ESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE GUNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 157.
6. MR. VISHNU SHANKAR SHUKLA
S/O HAZARILAL SHUKLA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.159
R.T. NAGAR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SRI. HARISH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO. ALN(JALA) CR.20/2023-24,
ALN/SR/NA/114/1995-96, ALN/SR/NA/115/1995-96 DATED
15/05/2024 PASSED BY THE R2 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.01.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order
passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner in
cancelling the conversion orders passed on 09.08.1996 and
05.09.1996 vide order dated 15.05.2024.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The subject matter of the captioned petition is a
converted land bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 3 acres 2
guntas. The petition lands are admittedly owned by
respondent Nos.4 and 5. Petitioners claim that respondent
Nos.4 and 5 applied for conversion of this land and the
4
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District vide
orders dated 09.08.1996 and 05.09.1996 passed two
separate conversion orders as this land is owned by two
owners. The father of the respondent No.4 namely
Lachappa and Smt.Muniyamma and others executed five
sale deeds in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of 5 acres
3 guntas on 31.10.1996.
3. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 initiated restoration
proceedings invoking provisions of PTCL Act. The said
application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and
appeal filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 before the
Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A was also dismissed.
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 assailing the order of the Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner filed writ petition
in W.P.Nos.60483-84/2016. Since the land was already
converted before alienation, learned Single Judge referred
the matter to the Full Bench to examine the scope of
provisions under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act. The Full Bench
5
while answering a reference held that once land is
converted, the provisions under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act is
no longer available.
4. The Full Bench judgment was challenged by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
SLP No.21079/2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the
SLP vide its order dated 28.01.2022. Subsequently, the
coordinate Bench, following the order of the Reference
Court, dismissed the petition. This dismissal was later
affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.383/2022.
Curiously, despite the adverse decisions, respondent Nos.4
and 5, along with respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner,
challenged the Division Bench's order by filing SLPs before
the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed
the orders rejecting the restoration application, effectively
concluding the matter.
6
5. The petitioners allege that respondent No.6, an
adjoining property owner, despite the conclusion of two
rounds of litigation, lodged a complaint with respondent
No.2/Deputy Commissioner, alleging that the conversion
order had been obtained through fraudulent means. In
response to this complaint, the petitioners submitted a
detailed representation questioning respondent No.2's
jurisdiction to entertain such an application to reconsider
the conversion order passed as far back as 1996. However,
respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated
15.05.2024 (Annexure-S), proceeded to cancel the
conversion order issued in 1996, aggrieving the petitioners.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.6. This Court has also heard Sri Kiran V.Ron, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
State. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the
7
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned AAG.
7. The short point that needs consideration at the
hands of this Court is as to whether Deputy Commissioner
exercising power under Section 95 grants conversion of an
agricultural land to be used for non-residential purpose
retains authority to cancel the conversion order.
8. The issue on hand is no more res integra. The
coordinate Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment
in the case of Smt. Rathna vs. Deputy Commissioner1
held that Deputy Commissioner has no power to cancel the
conversion order. The coordinate Bench referring to
Section 49 of the Act held that nowhere in the Act is there a
provision for cancellation of order of conversion.
Distinguishing the law laid down in the case of
K.R.Lakshman vs. State of Karnataka & Others2,
1
W.P.No.45634/2013
2
AIR 1996 Kar 179
8
coordinate Bench has answered the points raised by learned
AAG in regard to Deputy Commissioner's inherent power
conferred under Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act. The coordinate Bench distinguishing the law
laid down in the case of Lakshman (supra) held that
Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act exercises administrative power while
granting conversion of an agricultural land. The coordinate
Bench therefore held that once order is passed under
Section 95 of the Act, the authority becomes functus officio
and therefore, there is no provision to seek review of
administrative action unless specifically provided in the
Statute. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered
by the coordinate Bench in the case of Smt.
Parvathamma vs. The State of Karnataka & Others
(W.P.No.44580/2017).
9. In the present case, the conversion orders were
issued in 1996, and an attempt to challenge them has been
9
made as late as 2024. Such an extraordinary delay raises
serious questions about the bona fides of the challenge
itself. This Court also takes note of the fact that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 have previously failed to establish
their claims under the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). Despite
their unsuccessful attempts, they appear to have colluded
with respondent No.6, an adjoining landowner, to instigate
the Deputy Commissioner to re-examine the validity of the
conversion orders. This collusion is evident in the manner
the Deputy Commissioner has overstepped his statutory
powers to entertain a matter settled decades ago. Such
conduct undermines the integrity of the administrative
process and suggests a misuse of authority by respondent
No.2 at the behest of respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6.
10. It is further observed that the Division Bench of
this Court had earlier confirmed the Assistant
10
Commissioner's order rejecting the application for
restoration filed under the PTCL Act. Strangely, this order
was then challenged by the Deputy Commissioner, who
himself acted contrary to the established legal position and
attempted to reopen settled issues. This unusual sequence
of events not only points to procedural impropriety but also
highlights the lack of jurisdiction exercised by the Deputy
Commissioner in revisiting the matter. The conduct of
respondent Nos.4 and 5, who lack the locus standi to
question the conversion orders, further reinforces the
inference that these proceedings were initiated solely to
harass the petitioners. Notably, the first petitioner's title
over the property, based on two sale deeds, remains intact
in light of the dismissal of the restoration proceedings under
the PTCL Act.
11. The petitioners have also highlighted that
respondent Nos.4 and 5 have now filed appeals before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which are currently
11
pending as KAT Appeal Nos.478/2022 and 479/2022. This
Court cannot overlook the fact that respondent No.6, who is
instrumental in the present proceedings, has filed an
impleading application in both pending appeals before the
KAT. These circumstances unequivocally indicate that the
impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
cancelling the conversion orders, is without jurisdiction.
12. The legal position on this issue is well-settled
and no longer res integra. The judgments rendered by
coordinate Benches of this Court, including those in Smt.
Rathna vs. Deputy Commissioner and Smt.
Parvathamma vs. State of Karnataka & Others (supra),
have conclusively held that the Deputy Commissioner has
no authority to cancel a conversion order once it is issued
under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. These
decisions have clarified that the Deputy Commissioner
becomes functus officio upon granting the conversion order
and cannot review or revoke it unless specifically
12
empowered by statute. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in this case is devoid
of jurisdiction, nonest in law, and unsustainable. It deserves
to be set aside for being contrary to the established
principles of law.
13. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 15.05.2024
passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-S
is hereby quashed and set aside;
(iii) Pending interlocutory application, if
any, does not survive for consideration and
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
