- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.104430 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. M N VAMAN MURTHY S/O. M S NARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O. #423 SANJEEVARAYA KRUPA, 16TH WARD, 3RD CROSS, PATTA MOSQUE ROAD, BASAVESWARA BADAWANE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYAAGARA-583 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGARA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.M.KHANNUR, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT APPLICATION DATED 28/05/2025 APPLICATION NO.771409 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VIJAYANAGARA PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONVERSION ORDER IN RESPECT TO THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 48/A/4 MEASURING ONE ACRE ATTACHED TO STATE HIGH WAY SITUATED AT NANDIBANDI VILLAGE, TQ HOSAPETE, DISTRICT VIJAYANAGARA AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 48/A/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE OUT OF 5 ACRES SITUATED AT NANDIBANDI VILLAGE, TQ HOSAPETE, DISTRICT VIJAYANAGARA HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL COMMERCIAL VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 PURPOSE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 95 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned AGA Sri.M.M.Khannur accepts notice for respondent-State. 2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.48/A/4 measuring 5 acres situated at Nandibandi village, taluk Hosapete, district Vijayanagar. He purchased the land on 03/01/2023 and pursuant to which, his name is mutated in the revenue record. Ownership of the petitioner over the land is not in dispute. This being the state of affairs, several developments have taken place in and around the region of the agricultural land of the petitioner and accordingly the land has lost the nature of agricultural category. It is also attached to the National Highway and the State Highway as per the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 Government Circular No.SUM.NAE:16 BUM RUPA: 2024 dated 20.12.2004. The land is attached to the National Highway and the State Highway and permission is given to the petrol station in the agricultural zone to provide infrastructure related to transport connectivity along with the National Highway or State Highway. The petitioner applied for conversion of the land to an extent of 1 acre out of the 5 acres from agriculture to non-agriculture commercial purpose on 28/05/2025 in accordance to Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The said application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondent on flimsy ground that the same does not come within the ambit of PTCL Act and hence permission cannot be granted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and contrary to the fact and also the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, who has clearly given categorical statement by stating that the land in question does not come under the PTCL Act - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 and the Urban Development Authority has given a technical opinion to the office of the Deputy Commissioner recommending to approve the conversion to commercial purpose vide the Circular dated 20.12.2004. The petitioner is questioning the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner without providing opportunity of hearing and without going to the provisions of the Circular on the PTCL Act the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order and also prays for consequential reliefs, including a writ of mandamus. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the land nor does he dispute the endorsement given by the Tahsildar and the Urban Development Authority recommending the conversion of the land. Learned AGA agrees to the fact that since the land falls within the limits of the National Highway and State Highway for the purpose of better transport and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 connectivity, the Circular issued on 20th December 2004 applies and the present land of the petitioner comes within the ambit of the said Circular and therefore he sustains the impugned order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent-State. 6. Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to ownership of the land of the petitioner as the application for conversion is only to an extent of 1 acre out of 5 acres in Sy.No.48/A/4. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of the Circular by the State dated 20th December 2004, where permissions were ordered to be given to petrol station and other agricultural properties to provide infrastructure related to transport connectivity along the National Highway and the State Highway. Once the endorsement has been given by the Tahasildar stating that the lands of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of PTCL Act, the same is not considered by the Deputy Commissioner which should have been taken into account - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 while passing the order for conversion so also the Circular issued on 20th December 2004 of the State Government to develop the infrastructures in and around the National Highway and the State Highway. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by respondent-Deputy Commissioner would not be sustainable and would have to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement dated 28.05.2025 in application bearing No.771409 by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner is quashed. Consequently a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for conversion of the land to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.48/A/4 in accordance with the Circular issued on 20th December 2004 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8870 WP No. 104430 of 2025 also the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar stating that the lands does not come under the purview of the PTCL Act and pass suitable orders also keeping in view Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. iii. The said exercise will be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3