- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100341 OF 2026 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNEER SIDDIQUE S/O. LATE MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE SAAB, OCC: AGRICULTURE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA ROAD, T:. HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANT S.CHATNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED NILL BEARING NO. NILL PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VIJAYANAGARA PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OFF DIRECTION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONVERSION ORDER IN RESPECT TO THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 70/A MEASURING 3.50 ACRES SITUATED AT JAMBUNATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ.HOSAPETE, DISTRICT VIJAYANAGARA 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 GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the endorsement (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent, wherein the Deputy Commissioner by an impugned endorsement rejected the petitioner's application for conversion of his agricultural land to non-agricultural land. 3. Brief facts: The petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.71/A, measuring 3.50 acres, situated at Jambunathanahalli Village, Hospete Taluk, Vijayanagara District, through a registered sale deed dated 21.10.2005. Pursuant to which, the petitioner made an application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 (‘KLR Act’ for short) seeking conversion of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 said land for non-agricultural commercial purposes. The said application came to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the land is brought within the limits of Municipal Council, the provisions of KLR Act ceased to apply. It is further contended that the Commissioner of Hosapete City Municipal Council has issued an endorsement indicating that the subject land falls within Municipal limits, and therefore, by operation of law, there is a deemed conversion. 5. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision this Court in the case of J.M. Narayana and Ors. vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore1, and in the case of M/s Chamundi Associates vs. The State of Karnataka and Another2, to contend that insistence on conversion order under Section 1 ILR 2005 KAR 60. 2 W.P.No.26700/2016 (Disposed on 02.06.2023) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 95 of KLR act is unsustainable when the land is within Municipal limits. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M.Narayana and others (supra) has held at Para 5, which reads thus; “5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that the suit property stands included within the Corporation limits in terms of a notification issued much earlier to the filing of the suit. As a result of such inclusion, the taxes applicable within the Corporation limits would by operation of law and in particular Section 4 Sub-section 4 of the Municipal Corporation Act become applicable to the extended area also. Even assuming that the land in question was agricultural land before its inclusion in the Corporation limits, the same would not necessarily mean that it either continued to pay land revenue nor would such land be exempted from payment of property tax under the said Act. As rightly pointed out by Mrs.Patil, Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, exempts the payment of property tax qua only such lands as are registered to be agricultural lands in revenue records of Government and as are actually used for cultivation of crops. Stated conversely just - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 because certain land included in the Corporation limits is registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the said land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. On the contrary, Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the Corporation limits.” Emphasis supplied 7. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Muninarayana Swami and Another Vs State of Karnataka rep., by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Others3 has held at Para No.3, which reads as under: “3. It is not in dispute that lands are situated in Ward No.9 of Chikkaballapur Town and when the property situated within the Town Municipal Council area when Town Municipal Council has collected development charges from the appellants and granted plan for construction of the compound and in the planning area if it has lost the character of agriculture, the Dy. Commissioner will not get any right to cancel the khata on the ground that the appellants have not obtained an order of conversion. Therefore, 3 ILR 2012 KAR 3428 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 we are of the opinion that there is no necessity for the appellants to obtain conversion from agriculture to non-agriculture, if the area comes within the Town Municipal council limits and in the background of Town Municipal Council collecting the developmental charges and treated as Municipal property.” Emphasis supplied 8. In the aforesaid decisions, it is been categorically held that when the land is included in the Municipal or Corporation limits, the KLR Act ceases to apply to such land and there is no necessity to obtain conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural land. In the present case, the endorsement issued by the Hosapete Municipal Council clearly indicates that the subject land falls within the Municipal limits. Despite this undisputed position, the respondent-Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application by a non speaking endorsement. Accordingly, unsustainable and this Court pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:507 WP No. 100341 of 2026 ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement order dated Nil bearing No.Nil in Application No.808441 dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent is hereby quashed. iii. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh after examining whether the land in question falls within the limits of the Hosapete City Municipal Council after taking into consideration the endorsement issued by the Municipal Authority (Annexure-C) which indicates that the land in question falls within the Municipal limits and to pass reasoned and speaking order in light of the law laid down in the decisions stated supra within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25