- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.33246 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI.K.J.PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE K B JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.327, 8TH BLOCK 1ST "A" MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SRINIVASA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101 3. THE TAHSILDAR SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2019 IN CASE NO.L.R.F79(A)(B)/ CR/206/2013-14, AT ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AND FURTHER TO REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.76/5, MEASURING 1 ACRE 18 GUNTAS OF LAND, SITUATED AT BASAVAPATTANA VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner dated 05.08.2019, wherein respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner exercising power under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 has nullified the sale deed obtained by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to purchase the agricultural land. The said order is under challenge. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents. 3. The records reveal that one Lakshmamma purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.76 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 08.02.2006. The records also reveal that the said Lakshmamma obtained the conversion order at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner on 07.11.2013. Having converted the land, Lakshmamma sold the land in question to one Ramesh under registered sale deed dated 27.11.2013. The said Ramesh, in turn, has sold in favour of the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2015. 4. As per the records, the land in question was already subjected to conversion before its transfer. The competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, issued a Conversion Order dated 07.11.2013, permitting the use of the land for non-agricultural purposes. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 Subsequently, Lakshmamma, who was the owner of the converted land, executed a registered sale deed on 27.11.2013, transferring ownership in favor of Ramesh. Since the land had already been converted, the sale was made with the due authorization and in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. Later, the petitioner legally acquired the said land from Ramesh through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.2015. Given these facts, it is evident that the land in question was no longer categorized as agricultural land at the time of its transfer to the petitioner, and its conversion status had already been established. 5. In light of these significant facts, the initiation of proceedings on 05.08.2019 was entirely without jurisdiction and authority. As of that date, the land in question had already been converted for non-agricultural use, as evidenced by the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 07.11.2013. This order had granted explicit permission to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title to utilize - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 the land for non-agricultural purposes. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.2 proceeded with the inquiry under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act without duly considering the revenue records. The failure to examine the legal status of the land before initiating proceedings reflects a lack of jurisdiction in the matter. Since the land had ceased to be agricultural even before its transfer to the petitioner, the proceedings undertaken against the petitioner are legally unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 05.08.2019 in Case No.L.R.F79(a)(b)/ CR/206/2013-14 as per Annexure-A - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8267 WP No. 33246 of 2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set-aside. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12