- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34522 WP No. 19091 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 19091 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI D. GOVINDARAJU, S/O SRI DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATHI NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101 3. THE TAHSILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 105 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DIBBURAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DIBBURAHALLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 105 Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34522 WP No. 19091 of 2025 5. THE DIRECTOR COUNTRY AND TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR URBAN AND TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 7. SRI DADA PEER S/O LATE FAKRUDDIN SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT DIBBURHALLI VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, R5 & R6; SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION OF CONVERSION ORDER DATED 03.06.2025, BEARING SL.NO.A.L.N/(S)/S.R.42/2024-25, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AS PER ANNEXURE-J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 03.06.2025, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, has cancelled the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34522 WP No. 19091 of 2025 order of conversion that was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 06.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into a registered agreement of sale on 12.10.2020 with all the family members of respondent No.7 including respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 along with his family members also executed a registered General Power of Attorney on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of the lands in question on the strength of the General Power of Attorney executed by the respondent No.7 and his family members. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 06.08.2024 converting the lands for the purpose of industrial crusher. However, at the instance of respondent No.7, it appears that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner without even issuing notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that subsequently the petitioner purchased the lands in question under a registered sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34522 WP No. 19091 of 2025 deed dated 29.03.2025. It is thereafter such an application is given by the respondent No.7 seeking cancellation of the conversion order. Learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind as to why a person would seek cancellation of a conversion order which he himself obtained earlier. The Deputy Commissioner should have noticed the fact that it is at the instance of the petitioner that the conversion order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 06.08.2024 and therefore the least that the Deputy Commissioner should have done is to issue notice to the petitioner. 3. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner should have questioned the respondent No.7 as to why he is seeking cancellation of the conversion order which he himself had obtained earlier. The truth would have come out if the Deputy Commissioner had questioned the respondent No.7 that the respondent No.7 along with his family members have sold the property in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34522 WP No. 19091 of 2025 favour of the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed in the month of March, 2025. 4. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-J passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY/-