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