- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23561 OF 2021 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SRI. H.K JAYANNA, S/O LATE H.S. KARISIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT JAYADEVA MODERN INDUSTRIES, SHANKARMUTT ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHULING K NAVADAGI A/W SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR., ADVOCATE AND SRI.KEERTI REDDY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGGA-577 201. 3. SHIVAMOGGA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. P. RADHA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner has questioned the order dated 29.09.2021 bearing No.SMGDC- ALNI/MISC/68/2021(E-70196) passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner thereby recalling the conversion order dated 18.05.2019 evidenced at Annexure-E. 2. The subject matter of this writ petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.17/6 measuring 1 acre 02 guntas situated at Urgadur Village, Shivamogga Taluk. Petitioner asserts that this is an Inam land and one Sri.H.S.Rudrappa was re-granted vide order dated 12.11.1964 and after his demise the property was inherited to one Sir.H.S.Shankar and accordingly his name was mutated in the year 1992. The said Shankar sold the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 property in favour of his mother Smt.Shanthamma under a registered sale deed dated 03.12.2010. Accordingly, petitioner's mother name was duly mutated in RTC. Since the property was purchased by the family, the same was subjected to family partition under registered family property deed on 21.10.2015 and the petitioner was allotted to petitioner's share. 3. Petitioner claim that she has applied for conversion and the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.05.2019, which is evidenced at Annexure-E passed a order. 4. Based on the representation/complaint lodged by 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner has recalled the conversion order under the impugned order vide Annexure-A. 5. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for 3rd - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 respondent and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is whether the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the conversion order on 18.05.2019, retains the authority to subsequently recall the same order, as done through the impugned order under Annexure-A. 7. Before addressing this issue, this Court deems it appropriate to consider two judgments rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No. 45634/2013, which decisively address the Deputy Commissioner’s authority to recall a conversion order. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: "xxxxx 5. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that before passing of the cancellation of the conversion no notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, on that short ground alone, the impugned order would have to be set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 6. That apart, the Act provides for appeal to be filed, from an original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner to the tribunal as per Section 49 of the Act. The second respondent ought to have availed that remedy. Nowhere in the Act is there a provision for cancellation of an order of conversion. The decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 in the case of Lakshman Vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 1995 Kar 1871) is not applicable to the present case as that decision arises under Section 24 of the Act where the Revenue Officers constitute a Revenue Court and Section 25 specifically provides for inherent powers of a Revenue Court. But in the instant case, the administrative power of the Deputy Commissioner is exercised under Section 95 of the Act. Once the order is passed under that Section, the authority becomes functus officio. There can be no review of an administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute. This is unlike the case of exercise of a quasi judicial or judicial powers, wherein the power of review may be provided under the statute explicity or could be read as part of the inherent powers of such an authority. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would not have passed the impugned order canceling the order of conversion granted on 08/08/2011. On this ground alone, the impugned order is quashed." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 8. This Court has already addressed the issue of whether the Deputy Commissioner has the authority to recall a conversion order in similar circumstances. The principles laid down in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment referenced above conclusively establish that the Deputy Commissioner cannot exercise powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in relation to recalling a conversion order. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that granting a conversion order is purely an administrative action. Once such an order is passed under Section 95 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner becomes functus officio, meaning the authority has exhausted its power regarding the matter. Therefore, any review or reconsideration of an administrative order, in the absence of specific statutory provisions, is impermissible. 9. In light of the principles of law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 however, attempted to justify the action by referring to the stand taken in the statement of objections. It is contended that the land in question was acquired and handed over to respondent No. 3 as far back as 1954 and is presently designated as a park area intended for a public purpose. While these claims may have relevance in a different context, they do not fall within the scope of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court’s primary task here is to examine the legality of the Deputy Commissioner’s authority to recall the conversion order, not to delve into the factual complexities raised by respondent No. 3. 10. The Deputy Commissioner’s role under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is strictly limited, and once the conversion order is issued, the authority ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. The ancillary issues raised by respondent No. 3, including the historical acquisition of the land and its designation as a park area, involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition. If respondent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2352 WP No. 23561 of 2021 No. 3 seeks relief based on such claims, the appropriate course of action would be to initiate proper proceedings before the competent forum, in accordance with the law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed by 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside; iii. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of 3rd respondent in establishing its right and title in the manner known to law. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13