Karnataka High Court
Sri G P Venkata Naidu C/O Peddapaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
WP No. 101508 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 101508 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. G.P. VENKATA NAIDU
C/O. PEDDAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. FLAT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR,
ARYA KRISHNA APARTMENT,
KOTHIHOSAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI VIJAYANAGARA-587 301.
...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA)
BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED
NILL BEARING NO. NILL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
OF VIJAYANAGARA PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B IN
RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.465/*/A/3A
MEASURING 0.39 ACRES SITUATED AT AMARAVATHI
VILLAGE, TQ: HOSAPETE DIST: VIJAYANAGAR BY ISSUE
OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT
OR ORDER OF DIRECTION.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
WP No. 101508 of 2025
HC-KAR
b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONVERSION ORDER VIDE
APPLICATION NO. 736674 DATED 26/12/2024 IN
RESPECT TO THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER
465/*/A/3A MEASURING 0.39 ACRES SITUATED AT
AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, TQ HOSAPETE, DISTRICT
VIJAYANAGARA.
c) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE
LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER SURVEY NUMBER
465/*/A/3A MEASURING 0.39 ACRES SITUATED AT
AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, TQ HOSAPETE, DISTRICT
VIJAYANAGARA ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED
BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 95 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE ACT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Learned AGA Sri.M. M. Khannur, is directed to take
notice for the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Petitioner is the owner of the agricultural lands
bearing survey No.465/3A measuring 0.39 acres, situated
at Amaravathi Village, Hosapete Taluk, District
Vijayanagar, having obtained the said land through
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
HC-KAR
succession on 24.10.2021. The revenue entries reflect the
name of the petitioner. The property of the petitioner was
shown to be coming within the limits of Hosapete City
Municipal Council by an endorsement dated 07.01.2025,
vide Annexure-C. The petitioner made an application on
26.12.2024 for conversion of said land of the petitioner
from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. Despite the
application being made, no action has been taken by the
respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that, once the land belonging to the petitioner
comes within the Hosapete City Municipal Council and the
endorsement having been issued to that effect, the
respondent ought to have converted the land to non-
agricultural purpose as contemplated under Section
95(2)(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment)
Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short),
on the ground that the land would be deemed to be
converted. Having not done so, the petitioner is before this
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
HC-KAR
Court for the inaction of the respondents. Learned counsel
for the petitioner relies on the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.101075/2024 dated
21.02.2024, in support of his case.
5. The provisions of section 95(2)(i) of the Act is
not disputed by the learned AGA. Learned AGA further
contends that, if the property is falling within the City
Municipal limits and the same has been declared so by an
endorsement by the City Municipal Council, Section
95(2)(i) of the Act would be squarely applicable to the
case on hand.
6. Under the circumstances, once the property
falls within the City Municipal Council or Municipality, the
provisions of Section 95(2)(i) of the Act would be attracted
and it would be a deeming provision. Therefore, the
respondents are duty bound to pass an order granting
conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose
as contemplated under the said provision. Having not done
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
HC-KAR
so, the respondent committed an illegality, but the
respondent ought to follow the due process of law, more
specifically section 95(2)(i) of the Act, more so when the
application is filed seeking conversion of land.
7. In view of the above, it is only a formality of the
requirement for the petitioner to seek permission to divert
or convert the land from agricultural to non-agricultural
purpose in view of the lands of the petitioner coming
within the Hosapete City Municipal Council limits.
8. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing
the respondent to pass suitable orders
of conversion of the land of the
petitioner from agricultural to non-
agricultural purpose by collecting any
conversion fee, if so applicable and if
not paid.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8289
HC-KAR
iii. The compliance of this order shall be
done in accordance with law, within a
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
