IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 8154/2021 (KLR/CON)

BETWEEN :

SRI. K. GANGANNA

SON OF KRISHNA REDDY,

AGED 61 YEARS,

(SENIOR CITIZEN)

R/AT BURUJANARAPPA VILLAGE,

AIMANGALA HOBLI,

HIRIYURU TALUK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 3 577 532.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAGADISH GUNDAPPA., ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

CHITRADURGA,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 3 577 501.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

ISSUE A WRIT OR CERTIORARI QUASHING THE SHOW

CAUSE

NOTICE

DATED

18.02.2021

IN

NO.

LAQ/HYR/08/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDNET,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the owner of land measuring

6 acres and 20 Guntas in survey No. 42/6 of

Burujanarappa Village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk,

Chitradurga District, has filed this writ petition

impugning the Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2021 in

LAQ/HYR/08/2020-2021 (Annexure-A) on the short

ground that the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga

District, Chitradurga, the second respondent, who has

issued the Official Memorandum dated 07.04.2020 in

No. 150436 (Annexure-C) permitting diversion of the

aforesaid lands from agricultural to commercial godown

3

purposes under the provisions of Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not conferred

with

the

jurisdiction

to

cancel

such

Official

Memorandum.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Government Advocate are heard.

The second respondent has issued the impugned Show

Cause Notice dated 18.02.2021 alleging that the

adjoining lands in survey No. 42/2 and 42/3 of

Burujanarappa Village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk,

Chitradurga District were notified in the year 2018 for

the purposes of Railways, and simultaneously it was

also assessed that an extent of 2 acres 7 Guntas in the

petitioner9s land in survey No. 42/6 would be required

for the Railways. Therefore, appropriate notification is

issued in the month of July 2020 and the petitioner,

who was aware of these proceedings, has obtained the

4

conversion order vide the Official Memorandum dated

07.04.2020 with the intention of obtaining higher

compensation. The petitioner, who has responded to the

impugned Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2021,

through his learned counsel as per Annexure-J, has

denied these allegations. The petitioner even in this

response, which is dated 27.03.2021, has asserted that

the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the

impugned Show Cause Notice dated 18.02.2021.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies

upon the decision of this Court in WP No. 45634/2013

(which is disposed of on 14.11.2013) as also the later

decisions of this Court in similar lines to contend that

there is no provision in the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964 (for short, 8the Land Revenue Act9) for

cancellation of an order under Section 95 thereof, and

the jurisdiction to cancel such order cannot be traced

5

even to Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act inasmuch

as an order under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act is

an order in exercise of administrative jurisdiction and

inherent powers under section 25 of the Land Revenue

Act is with reference to Revenue Courts. The Deputy

Commissioner once passes an order under Section 95 of

the Land Revenue Act, becomes functus officio and there

can be no review of this order unless specifically

provided in the statute.

4. The principle enun