- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.106284 OF 2023 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K. S. JINNAH SAB S/O. LATE SYED MOHAMMED SAB AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583212. 2. SMT. SATTYAMMA W/O. BASAPPA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H. NO.130, WARD NO.2, GOLLARA ONI, OL HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583212. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. M. JATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. BALLARI-583212. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. BALLARI-583212. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPAL OFFICE, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. BALLARI-583212. 6. SRI. SYED YUSUF S/O. LATE IBRAHIM SAB, AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583212. 7. SRI. SYED MOHABOOB SAB S/O. LATE IBRAHIM SAB AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI M.M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO 7; SRI LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 30.06.2023 BEARING NO. SAM/KAM.BHOOPA/06/2022-23 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED. 24.01.2020 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND LEGAL NOTICE DATED. 10.10.2022 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H, RESPECTIVELY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following relief: a) Issue a Writ/s or Order/s in the nature of Certiorari to Quash impugned order dated. 30.06.2023 bearing No. Sam/kam.bhoopa/06/2022-23 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-K. b) Issue a Writ/s or Order/s in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representation dated 24.01.2020 given by the petitioner No.1 produced vide Annexure-F and legal notice dated. 10.10.2022 produced vide Annexure-H, respectively. c) Issue any other Writ/s, Order/s or Directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.220D/1 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 10 gunta situated at H.B.Halli. To the southern side of the said land, respondents No.6 and 7 claim to be the owners of Sy.No.220/D2A measuring to an extent of 00-60 acres, Sy.No.220/D2B measuring to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 an extent of 00-63 acres and Sy.No.224B/1 measuring to an extent of 00-87 acres. 3. The petitioners and respondents No.6 and 7 by way of separate applications to the Deputy Commissioner sought for conversion of the aforesaid lands from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes, which was allowed vide orders dated 23.11.2015, 03.11.2014, 03.03.2016 and 30.10.2019 at Annexure-B series. In terms of the conversion granted, the petitioners and respondents No.6 and 7 applied for and obtained plan sanctions for formation of layouts. The manner in which the plan sanction had obtained were in fact by treating the entire lands of the petitioners and respondents No.6 and 7 to be one single composite unit with roads leading from one property to other property, which have been described in the petition as link roads leading up to the Tambarahalli to Hagaribommanahalli road thereby, providing access to the petitioners. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 4. The petitioners claim that they have implemented the plan sanction, formed sites and sold it to 3rd parties, who have purchased the same and put up constructions thereon. 5. While things stood thus, the impleading applicants in I.A.No.1/2024 had filed a suit in O.S.No.28/2020 seeking for partition and separate possession against respondents No.6 and 7, which came to be decreed on 30.01.2023. Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 therein i.e., proposed respondents No.11 and 12 were declared to be entitled to 1/10th share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule ‘B’ properties therein. Plaintiffs No.2, 3, defendants No.1 and 2 each were declared to be entitled to 2/10th share over item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. 6. Item No.1 of the suit schedule ‘B’ property therein is Sy.No.220D2A measuring 0.60 acres and item No.2 is Sy.No.220D2B measuring 0.63 acres, which was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 subject matter of the application for conversion filed by respondents No.6 and 7 as detailed above. 7. On the said suit being decreed, the decree having attained finality since respondents No.6 and 7 did not challenge the said decree, the proposed respondents submitted an application to respondents No.1 seeking for cancellation of the conversion granted on the ground that they had not consented to or acceded to the conversion and as such, the conversion order cannot bind them. Respondents No.1 accepting the said statement vide his order dated 30.06.2023 at Annexure-K, allowed the same and set-aside the conversion in respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.220/D2A and 220/D2B. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 8. Shri S.M.Jatti, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in terms of the conversion order of Sy.Nos.220D/1 belonging to the petitioners and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 Sy.Nos.220/D2A and 220/D2B belonging to respondents No.6 and 7 as also the impleading applicants, a layout has been formed after obtaining necessary permission, sites having formed. If the conversion in respect of Sy.Nos.220/D2A and 220/D2B is cancelled, the conversion order in respect of Sy.No.220D/1 belonging to the petitioners, would be adversely affected. The access to said property as per the layout plan sanctioned will be negated depriving the petitioners of such access. Lastly, he submits that the suit is a collusive one filed by respondents No.6 and 7 and the impleading applicants to deprive access to the land of the petitioners and to extort monies from the petitioners. He further submit that respondent No.1 having granted conversion order, does not have revisional powers and he having been rendered functus officio after passing of the conversion order, could not review his own administrative order and cancel the conversion on the basis of the application filed by the impleading - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 applicants in collusion with respondents No.6 and 7. He therefore submit that the impugned order is required to be quashed. 9. Shri M.M.Patil, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 supports the order of the Deputy Commissioner and submits that the Deputy Commissioner having taken into consideration that the impleading applicants rights' had not been taken into consideration when the conversion order was passed has now taken the same into consideration in terms of decree passed in O.S.No.28/2020 and has cancelled the conversion order, which cannot be found fault with. His submission is that the conversion order of the petitioners and the conversion order obtained by respondents No.6 and 7 are distinct independent orders and the conversion orders in respect of lands of respondents No.6 and 7 being cancelled, does not give any right to the petitioners to challenge the same. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 10. Shri C.V.Angadi, learned counsel appearing for proposed respondents No.8 to 11, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.28 of 2020 contends that the conversion order having been obtained without the consent of the impleading applicants is non est. The land originally belonging to one Ibrahim Sab, who is the father of the impleading applicants, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.28 of 2020 and respondents No. 6 and 7, who are defendants in the said suit, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that the impleading applicants and respondents No.6 and 7 were tenants in common. Thus, the impleading applicants always having a right, title and interest for the property without their consent, no application could have been filed for conversion and the conversion order obtained behind the back of impleading applicants, is non est and cannot be binding on the impleading applicants. His further submission is that false and fabricated documents have been created by respondents No.6 and 7 depriving the impleading applicants of their - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 right, title and interest in the property. On that ground, he submits that the conversion order has been rightly cancelled by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner and the reliefs, which have been sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 12. The facts as aforesaid are not in dispute. The ownership of the lands in Sy.No.220D/1 of that of the petitioners is not in dispute. The ownership of land in respect of Sy.Nos.220/D2A and 220/D2B being that of late Ibrahim Sab, is not in dispute. Respondents No.6 and 7 had applied for and obtained conversion of the aforesaid lands without the consent of the impleading applicants, which lead to the impleading applicants filing aforesaid suit in O.S.No.28 of 2020, which came to be decreed. The suit was filed in the year 2020 whereas the conversion orders were obtained on 23.11.2015, 03.11.2014, 03.03.2016 and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 30.10.2019. In pursuance of which, a layout approval was also obtained on 31.05.2016, 31.07.2020, 31.05.2016 and 30.07.2016. In furtherance of which, the petitioners claim that they have developed the layout in their property so also there is a development of a layout by respondents No.6 and 7. However, in order to deprive the petitioners of access to the main road through the lands of the respondent 6, 7 and the impleading applicants in terms of the layout plan sanctioned, a collusive suit has been filed and a decree obtained. This aspect is what would have to be considered by this Court on the basis of the submission and the pleadings, which have been filed. 13. A perusal of the decree in O.S.No.28 of 2020, would indicate there being no contest by respondents No.6 and 7 in as much as a suit having been filed by the impleading applicants, the respondents did not lead any cogent evidence, did not place on record any evidence as regards the layout approval, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 conversion order and the like, which are undisputed to have taken place in the year 2015-16. If at all respondents No.6 and 7 were not colluding with the impleading applicants, who are the plaintiffs in the said suit, it was required of respondents No.6 and 7 to have placed these details on record. Except for taking up a bald contention that a layout had been formed, no documents have been produced by respondents No.6 and 7, which came to be observed by the trial Court at Para-10 of the judgment and it is on the basis of such non production that the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no layout plan and sites were not sold to 3rd parties. It is that fact, which resulted in the trial Court passing the said judgement. If at all, it has been brought to notice of the trial Court that in pursuance of the conversion, a layout had been formed and that the said layout plan was in conjunction with layout plan of Sy.No.220D/1 belonging to the petitioners, in my considered opinion - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 it would be unlikely for the trial Court to pass the said judgment as regards item No.1 and 2. 14. The trial Court, would have considered the layout plan and the third party rights which had been created and would not have granted the reliefs sought for in respect to the sites, which have been formed more so when the owner of the said sites as also the petitioners were not parties to the said suit. The roads, which have been formed in the lands in Sy.Nos.220/D2A and 220/D2B have already been surrendered and relinquished in favour of respondents No.5 including civic amenity, roads etc are now belonging to respondents No.5 and thus, to a general public. 15. Once a land is converted from agriculture to non- agriculture purpose by the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner is rendered functus officio as held by this Court way back on 14.11.20213 in case of Smt. Rathna W/o Late Sadarama Vs Deputy - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 Commissioner and Another in W.P.No.45634/2013. When this Court has declared the Deputy Commissioner to be functus officio after the exercise of powers under Section 95 of the Act converting the land from agriculture to non- agriculture purposes and has further held that there can be no review of administrative action unless specifically provided in the statute. The statute not providing for the same, the Deputy Commissioner could not have on the basis of an application submitted by the impleading applicants, review the order of conversion and cancel the same. The judgment in the case of Smt. Rathna (supra), has been subsequently applied in several cases and has been approved by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 WA No.387 of 2023. That being the case the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner ought to have been aware of the said order and rejected the contention of the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 impleading applicants seeking for cancellation of the conversion order. 16. Be that as it may, the conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agriculture purposes, would enure to the benefit of all the family members. In this case, even if there is no collusion between the impleading applicants and respondents No.6 and 7, the conversion order granted by Deputy Commissioner only enhances the value of the land and as such, the rights of the parties. It is only in the remaining land that they can claim their interest as declared by the trial Court which would have to be considered in the final decree proceedings. 17. As however observed above, in the present matter, I have come to a categorical conclusion that there is a collusion between the impleading applicants and respondents No.6 and 7 and it is respondents No.6 and 7, who did not contest the said suit and who are now supporting the order of the Deputy - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 Commissioner, passed on the basis of application filed by the impleadings applicants, which as aforesaid being collusive, the impleading applicants cannot take advantage of such a collusive judgement passed in O.S.No.28 of 2020 to the detriment not only of the petitioners but as also respondents No.5 and the general public, who are now vested with the right to make use of the roads, which have been surrendered/relinquished to respondent No.5/authority. 18. In that view of the matter, I pass the following; ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impleading application filed in I.A.No.1/2024 stands rejected. iii) A certiorari is issued, the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 bearing No.Sa/Kom.Bhoopa/06/2022-23 by - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1516 WP No. 106284 of 2023 respondents No.1 at Annexure-K is hereby quashed. iv) The conversion orders dated 08.09.2014, 17.11.2015 and 06.02.2004 at Annexure-B series and the layout approvals dated 31.05.2016, 31.07.2020, 31.05.2016 and 30.07.2016 at Annexure-C series are declared to be valid and subsisting. v) Rights of the impleading applicants, are to be adjudicated in the final decree proceedings as and when filed in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.28 of 2020. vi) In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14