IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 39287 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUMANGALA R BHAT W/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.G-8, NEAR GULMOHAR PARK, AHAMEDNAGAR, MAHARASTRA-414003.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI K FOR SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATADRI Digitally signed by MANIPAL,UDUPI-576104.

SHARADAVANI B …RESPONDENT Location: High (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

Court of Karnataka THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.05.2025 IN NO.LNA (4)CR/07/2025/200155, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DECLINING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF CONVERSION AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 25.03.2025.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

A strange request is sought to be made by the petitioner to reconvert the converted non agricultural lands into agricultural lands. The petitioner has admittedly paid substantial sum while purchasing the property in question in the year 2010 by describing the property in question as non agricultural lands. Admittedly, the lands were converted by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner from agricultural to non agricultural purpose in the year 1983. The petitioner now seeks to use the land for agricultural purpose. That is the reason why the Court is saying that this is a strange request made at the hands of the petitioner to reconvert non agricultural lands into agricultural lands. The learned counsel has pointed out to certain conditions imposed in the order of conversion which requires the execution of activities permissible in terms of the order of conversion, within a period of three years failing which, the rights of the Deputy Commissioner are reserved to take action if non agricultural activities are sought to be done after the expiry of period of three years. This Court does not see any difficulty for the petitioner to use the property for agricultural purpose if she wishes to use it for agricultural purpose, although the lands are converted in the year 1983 itself.

2. The learned counsel has also failed to point out to any provision of law for re-conversion from non- agricultural activities to agricultural activities. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of Sd/-

(R DEVDAS)

JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40