- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100311 OF 2022 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VEEDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583119. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SANDUR DIVISION, SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583119. 4. THE TAHSILDAR SANDUR TALUK SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583119. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA) AND: MURUNNI HOSAGERAPPA S/O LATE ANGADI ALLAPPA AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O H.NO.352, TERU BAZAAR, VADDU, TALUK SADUR, DIST. BALLARI-583119. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH AND SRI. R.R. SHIVAPUR, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103989/2021 DATED 09.12.2021 & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 calling in question the order dated 09.12.2021 in W.P.No.103989/2021 whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein and directed the Deputy Commissioner to issue Challan to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to deposit conversion fees as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19641 within a period of six weeks. 2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that, the petitioner claiming to be the owner of land 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘1964 Act’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 bearing Sy.No.332A/1 measuring 2.57 acres situated at Vaddu, Sandur Taluk, Bellari District submitted an application online on 03.09.2020 with the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the 1964 Act to permit him to utilize the land for residential purpose. Contending that the application of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner was before the Writ Court on the ground that in view of Section 95(5) of 1964 Act permission is deemed to have been granted since there was no order of rejection. Learned Single Judge, considering the said writ petition, allowed the same by holding that the permission sought by the petitioner for converting the land in question for residential purpose is deemed to have been granted. Accordingly, learned Single Judge passed the following order: “ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue challan to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the conversion fees as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 1964within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.” 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the State. 5. Heard the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath for the State and learned counsel Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath and Sri.R.R.Shivapur for respondent/writ petitioner. 6. It is the primary contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the application submitted by the petitioner on 03.09.2020 was rejected on 05.11.2020, within the stipulated time, which fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is further contended that the application of the petitioner for conversion of his lands has been rejected on four - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 occasions i.e., on 18.07.2019, 19.09.2019, 27.06.2020 and 26.02.2021 which fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition. Hence, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks for allowing the writ appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the change of land sought for by the petitioner was in terms of the Regulations and the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. 8. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is as to, “Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with and whether the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition is liable to be granted?” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 9. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the application of the petitioner filed on 03.09.2020 has been rejected on 05.11.2020. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 16.04.2025 placing on record a copy of the endorsement dated 05.11.2020 rejecting the application No.176887 dated 03.09.2020 filed by the petitioner. It is clear that the application of the petitioner was rejected prior to filing of the writ petition itself. Further, the rejection of earlier applications of the petitioner for conversion of land which has been enumerated at paragraph 8 of the memorandum of writ appeal is not been disputed by the writ petitioner. 10. The petitioner who invokes jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is required to disclose all necessary facts and the said jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being a discretionary one, it is settled proposition of law that on the ground of mere non-disclosure of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 relevant facts, writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 11. In the present case, it is clear that there is non- disclosure of relevant facts by the petitioner and hence the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 12. Further, the application of the petitioner which was submitted on 03.09.2020 was rejected on 05.11.2020. Hence, the question of considering that the conversion is deemed to have been granted pursuant to the said application dated 03.09.2020 does not arise. In the facts of the present case, the deemed provision contained under Section 95(5) of 1964 Act would have no application. 13. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER a) Writ appeal is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6877-DB WA No. 100311 of 2022 b) The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.103989/2021 dated 09.12.2021 is set aside and W.P.No.103989/2021 is rejected. c) Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE NC LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14