- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.109882 OF 2025 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: RUDRAYYA S/O GURUPADAYYA AMMINBHAVIMATH AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOLASANGIYVAR ONI, RANGANATH NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI 581115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DIST. HAVERI-581115. 2. THE CASE WORKER LAND CONVERSION DIVISION OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED 03.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANENXURE-D AND D1 IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.805310 DATED 23.10.2025 AND APPLICATION NO.805314 DATED 23.10.2025 AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.07 10:07:56 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the endorsement issued by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner (Annexures-D and D1), whereby the petitioner's application seeking conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose has been rejected, and for a consequential direction to consider the application in accordance with law. 2. Brief facts: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in actual possession of lands bearing Survey No.521/3 measuring 0.17 guntas and Survey No.521/4 measuring 0.05 guntas situated at Ranebennur, District Haveri. The revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. With an intention to utilize the said land for non- agricultural purpose, namely for residential layout, the petitioner submitted an application/representation seeking conversion of the lands from agriculture to non- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 agricultural use before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short). It is the case of the petitioner that the lands are situated in an area where no master plan has been declared and therefore, the application/representation was maintainable before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. Upon submission of the application, the matter was referred to the Planning Authorities. Thereafter, the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner issued an impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application/representation dated 23.10.2025, stating that the land falls within the jurisdiction of the Town Planning Authority, Ranebennur and the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Aggrieved by rejection of the application/representation by the impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 endorsement, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is contended that respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application/representation without independently asserting whether the lands in question actually, fall within his jurisdiction. It is contended that the rejection is stated to be solely on communication from another authority, without application of mind or examination of a statutory provisions governing jurisdiction. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State admits that the endorsement has been issued on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Planning Authorities. 5. The only issue that arises for consideration is: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 ‘Whether the impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application/representation on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, can be sustained?.’ 6. On the perusal of the impugned endorsement, it is evident that the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has not taken an independent exercise to ascertain whether the petitioner's land falls within the jurisdiction under the Act or within the jurisdiction of any other competent Planning Authority. The contention of the petitioner is that the lands fall within the purview of the ‘non-declared master plan area’. Therefore, the petitioner's application/representation seeking conversion before the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Act, was maintainable. The endorsement merely records the opinion of an authority and proceeds to reject the application on that basis. 7. The determination of jurisdiction is a foundational requirement, which the statutory authority is obligated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 to decide before either entertaining or declining to entertain an application. The respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner being the authority empowered under the statute, cannot abdicate the responsibility by mechanically relying upon an external opinion. Such an approach amounts to a non-application of mind and renders the impugned endorsement legally unsustainable. However, this Court cannot itself undertake a factual determination as to the jurisdiction in-exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since the defect lies in the decision making process and not in the merits of the claim, it would be inappropriate to grant a final relief. The proper course, therefore, is to remit the matter to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner to independently ascertain the question of jurisdiction and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the following; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:811 WP No. 109882 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsements issued by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner (Annexures-D and D1) are hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's application/representation by first ascertaining whether the lands in question fall within the jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of any other competent planning authority and thereafter, to pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/-. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19