Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6371 (KAR)

SHRI. SITARAMSHASTRI S/O RAMAMURTHY KOLACHAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/104895/2024 · 2025-06-18

Pradeep Singh Yerur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7775 WP No. 104895 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104895 OF 2024 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SITARAMSHASTRI S/O. RAMAMURTHY KOLACHAL, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. #132, 7TH CROSS, GANESH COLONY, NEKAR NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 024. 2. SHRI GIREESHSHASTRI S/O. SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. # 199, DATTATREYA TEMPLE ROAD, GAJENDRAGADA, DIST: GADAG-582 114. 3. SHRI MOHAMMADRAFI B. TORAGAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. C/O. BASHESAB, # 2213, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, GAJENDRAGADA, DIST: GADAG-582 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI & SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7775 WP No. 104895 of 2024 BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL-583231. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL-583 231. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, KUKANUR TALUK-583232, TQ: KUKANUR, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.11.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.509025, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.10.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.517303 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PETITIONER NO.2 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE -A1 AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.10.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.530907 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PETITIONER NO.3, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE - A2. AND b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AND PASS ORDERS FOR CONVERSION OF USAGE OF PETITION LANDS FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7775 WP No. 104895 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioners have challenged the endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 rejecting their applications for conversion of lands as mentioned in this petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had sought for conversion of their lands. However, respondent No.2 rejected the applications stating that the lands would be required for acquisition for the purpose of Pune- Bangalore expressway. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that there is no acquisition has taken place. Therefore the rejection of conversion issued by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which contemplates - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7775 WP No. 104895 of 2024 that when a conversion of land is sought for, the authorities will have to decide in accordance with the said provisions and it is a deemed provision as per the Act and if no action is taken, it would be deemed conversion as contemplated under Section 95 of the Act and the proviso therein. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal and the same requires to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA representing the State contends that he has secured instructions. He submits based on the instructions that there is no acquisition of the lands taking place as of now. Under the circumstances, when there is no acquisition initiated or proposed, the question of rejecting the applications of the petitioners for conversion does not arise and the authorities would have to consider the applications of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7775 WP No. 104895 of 2024 ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement dated 29.11.2023 and 18.10.2023 issued by respondent No.2 to petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 respectively are hereby quashed. iii. Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the applications of the petitioners for conversion of the lands from agricultural use to non-agricultural use in accordance with the provisions of the Act. iv. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92