IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8625 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT GAYATHRI W/O M.R. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GUNIGUNTEPALYA OCC AGRICULTURIST MULABAGILU TOWN AND TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563131 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

Digitally signed by KIRAN 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KUMAR R Location:

KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. THE TAHASILDA R MULABAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563131 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.114/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DATED 28.02.2023 IN CASE NO.ALN.SR/35/2014-15, ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 IN CASE NO.ALN.SR/35/2014-15 AND ORDER DATED 18.06.2018 IN CASE NO.ALN.SR(MU)/35/2014-15 ALL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSOINER, VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C AND D RESPECTIVELY, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1. The Writ Petition is filed challenging an order by which the Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the order of conversion which he had been accorded to the petitioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Act). This order of the Deputy Commissioner has also been confirmed in appeal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

2. These facts are not in dispute.

3. On 02.03.1993, the land in question was granted by the State to P.Narayanappa. On 19.08.2006 Narayanappa's son N.Nagaraj sold this land under a registered sale deed dated 19.08.2006 in favour of Anand.

4. On 11.09.2006, Nagaraj S/o. Narayanappa executed another sale deed in favour of one Sri.G.V. Sridhar.

5. Sri.G.V. Sridhar, on 19.11.2007, sold the property that he had purchased to one P.M.Udaya Kumar.

6. On the death of P.M. Udaya Kumar, his wife and children executed a registered sale deed dated 12.03.2014 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.115/2 out of the total extent of 4 acres that has been granted in old Sy.No.59/P1. Pursuant to the said sale, the revenue entries were also mutated in favour of the petitioner Smt.Gayathri.

7. On 09.11.2015 at the request of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner accorded his permission to use the land for non-agricultural purpose. However, three years thereafter, on 18.06.2018, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to cancel the order of conversion on the ground that the granted land was sold within the period of 15 years and, therefore, the order of conversion would be improper.

8. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.10582/2021 and this Court after noticing that the order of conversion was withdrawn without giving notice to the petitioner, set aside the matter and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.

9. On remand, the Deputy Commissioner has once again come to the conclusion that the order of conversion could not have been granted to the petitioner, since the terms of the grant were violated inasmuch as the land had been sold within a period of 15 years. The appeal filed against the said order has also been registered before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and consequently, the petitioner is before this Court.

10. As could be seen from the above narration of events, it is clear that a grant made in the year 1993 has not been challenged till date. If the term of the grant was that it should not be sold for a period of 15 years and despite this term, the land had been sold, it is obvious that the Granting Authority could cancel the grant for violation of the terms of the grant within the period of 15