- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100101 OF 2025 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SRI. ARUN S/O. PARAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. #3220, JABAPUR STREET, HUKKERI, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591309. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE & SRI. RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI - 590 001, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.M.KHANNUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED 28/11/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.248*4 MEASURING 10 GUNTAS 08 ANNAS SITUATED AT HUKKERI IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETV. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.11 11:54:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: a) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the endorsement order dated 28/11/2024 issued by the respondent in respect of land bearing Sy.No.248*4 measuring 10 guntas 08 annas situated at Hukkeri is concerned vide Annexure-A. b) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application for conversion of the land of the petitioner without any reasons in terms of Annexure-A. Hence, the learned AGA was called upon to obtain instructions and make submission if any reasoned order has been passed. 3. Today learned AGA submits that the Deputy Director Town Planning Authority, Nippani had opined that it is not clear as to which planning authority application related to and in that background, the Deputy - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 Director, Town Planning Authority recommended the rejection of the application and as such, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner rejected the application such a reason and action is unknown to law. 4. If at all the Deputy Director, Town Planning, was not aware of or from the application it was not clear as to which Town Planning Authority the application related to, a clarification could have been sought for from the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, when the survey number, name of village, Taluka and District details have been furnished by the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Town Planning Authority could have always ascertained from his records as to under which Town Planning Authority, the said land falls under. Hence the recommendation made by the Deputy Director, Town Planning is not capable of being sustained and as such, is rejected. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 6. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have, on the basis of such a recommendation, rejected the application of the petitioner without any reasons being provided. 7. The endorsement at Annexure-A under the heading "reasons" only indicates "Hence, your Reconversion application is rejected” and earlier reference is made that the application has been rejected on 11/28/2024 at 11:01:39 AM. It is but required for any authority rejecting an application to provide reasons and for the said reasons to be also uploaded on to the online portal in which the online application has been made for conversion. None of these have been done and a bald rejection order. In that view of the matter I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 ii. Certiorari is issued, endorsement dated 28.11.2024 issued by the respondent at Annexure-A is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. If there are clarifications required, the respondent would be free to cause such clarifications from the petitioner. v. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to instruct all the officers coming under his jurisdiction to upload the reasons for rejecting any application filed by a citizen using the online platform provided by the Revenue Department. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2552 WP No. 100101 of 2025 vi. A compliance affidavit to be filed in this regard within four weeks from now, that is on or before 14.03.2025. vii. Though the above petition is disposed of, re-list on 19.03.2025 for consideration of the affidavit of the Principal Secretary. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK – upto para 4 gab – para 5 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17