- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8625 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GAYATHRI W/O M.R. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GUNIGUNTEPALYA OCC AGRICULTURIST MULABAGILU TOWN AND TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101. 3. THE TAHASILDA R MULABAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.114/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DATED 28.02.2023 IN CASE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 NO.ALN.SR/35/2014-15, ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 IN CASE NO.ALN.SR/35/2014-15 AND ORDER DATED 18.06.2018 IN CASE NO.ALN.SR(MU)/35/2014-15 ALL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSOINER, VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C AND D RESPECTIVELY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging an order by which the Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the order of conversion which he had been accorded to the petitioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Act). This order of the Deputy Commissioner has also been confirmed in appeal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 2. These facts are not in dispute. 3. On 02.03.1993, the land in question was granted by the State to P.Narayanappa. On 19.08.2006 Narayanappa's son N.Nagaraj sold this land under a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 registered sale deed dated 19.08.2006 in favour of Anand. 4. On 11.09.2006, Nagaraj S/o. Narayanappa executed another sale deed in favour of one Sri.G.V. Sridhar. 5. Sri.G.V. Sridhar, on 19.11.2007, sold the property that he had purchased to one P.M.Udaya Kumar. 6. On the death of P.M. Udaya Kumar, his wife and children executed a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2014 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.115/2 out of the total extent of 4 acres that has been granted in old Sy.No.59/P1. Pursuant to the said sale, the revenue entries were also mutated in favour of the petitioner Smt.Gayathri. 7. On 09.11.2015 at the request of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner accorded his permission to use the land for non-agricultural purpose. However, three years thereafter, on 18.06.2018, the Deputy - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 Commissioner proceeded to cancel the order of conversion on the ground that the granted land was sold within the period of 15 years and, therefore, the order of conversion would be improper. 8. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.10582/2021 and this Court after noticing that the order of conversion was withdrawn without giving notice to the petitioner, set aside the matter and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. 9. On remand, the Deputy Commissioner has once again come to the conclusion that the order of conversion could not have been granted to the petitioner, since the terms of the grant were violated inasmuch as the land had been sold within a period of 15 years. The appeal filed against the said order has also been registered before the Karnataka - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and consequently, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. As could be seen from the above narration of events, it is clear that a grant made in the year 1993 has not been challenged till date. If the term of the grant was that it should not be sold for a period of 15 years and despite this term, the land had been sold, it is obvious that the Granting Authority could cancel the grant for violation of the terms of the grant within the period of 15 years. If the Granting Authority did not choose to exercise this power, the grant which was conditional, till the expiry of 15 years, would become absolute and could not be cancelled on the ground that there was a breach in the compliance of the terms of the grant. 11. It is to be noticed here that a grant can be cancelled after the period of non-alienation, only if it is found that the grant had been secured by producing fraudulent and by making false representations. A - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 breach of a term of grant would have to be necessarily looked into before the term of the period of non-alienation expires and cannot be considered for cancellation of the grant after the expiry of the period of non-alienation. 12. It must also be noticed here that in this case till today the land grant has not been cancelled. In fact, after the first sale made on 19.08.2006, there had been three sale deeds dated 11.09.2006, 19.11.2007 and 12.03.2014 and pursuant to all the three sales, the revenue entries were also mutated in favour of the purchasers. This would also indicate that the Authorities were aware of the fact that the lands had been sold, despite the alleged violation of the terms of the grant. 13. If the Authorities had not taken any action from 2008 i.e., after expiry of 15 years period of non-alienation, for more than 6 six years, the Deputy Commissioner could not have resorted to withdraw the order of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13557 WP No. 8625 of 2025 conversion on the ground that there was violation of the terms of the grant. So long as the grant in question remained undisturbed, the Deputy Commissioner could not have cancelled the order of conversion. 14. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed. The order of conversion granted in favour of the petitioner, as a consequence, shall stand restored. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. 15. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33