- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31794 WP NO.19305 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.19305 OF 2022 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SMT. BIBI JAN D/O LATE PTM BASHASAHEB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.4 VENKATAGIRI KOTE NEW EXTENSION, CHITAMANI TOWN, CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. MEMBER SECRETARY YOJANA PRADIKARA (PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31794 WP NO.19305 OF 2022 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R4; SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31ST AUGUST, 2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO IN RESPECT OF THE PETITION SCHEDULE LAND; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is questioning the Endorsement dated 31st August, 2021 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent No.4 and all further proceedings thereto in respect of the schedule land. 2. Heard Sri. Narayana Swamy V.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 4; and Sri. Kalyan R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31794 WP NO.19305 OF 2022 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the petitioner has made an application for conversion of the schedule land for residential purpose. On receipt of the application made by the petitioner, the respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, by impugned Endorsement dated 31st August, 2021 (Annexure-F), rejected the application made by the petitioner stating that the schedule land is situate within the ambit of revised Master Plan-2031. However, on careful perusal of the impugned endorsement, I do not find the provision under which the respondent No.4 has rejected the application of the petitioner for conversion of her land and also no reasons are assigned to reject the application. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59