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. 300 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI P NAGARAJ S/O LATE PHAKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT AKSHAMALA PRIYANKA LAYOUT BEHIND BUS STAND, VIDYANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHOWRI H R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI by SHARADAVANI BENGALURU 560 001.

B Location: High Court of

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Karnataka SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.11.2025 ISSUED THROUGH THE ONLINE PORTAL REJECTING THE APPLICATION AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER SEEKING FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND IN SY. NO.102/4 TO THE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 27 GUNTAS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for conversion filed by the petitioner on 09.09.2025 at Annexure-'E' has been rejected at the hands of the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District by issuing the impugned endorsement at Annexure-'A' dated 18.11.2025. Learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the application on the ground that there is a proposal for acquisition of the lands in question for expansion or formation of National Highway at the hands of the National Highway Authorities of India. Learned counsel submits while placing reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kolan Narasimha Reddy vs. The State of Karnataka and others in WP No.201320 of 2024 dated 04.11.2024, that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered similar issue where the endorsement rejecting the application was issued after lapse of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the application. While considering the provisions contained in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, more particularly Section 95(2) which stood amended by Act, by Karnataka Act, 2 of 2023 with effect from 12.01.2023 that in the event the Deputy Commissioner fails to give his decision on the conversion application and issue any order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, the approval for diversion/conversion for use shall be deemed to have been granted and the same shall be certified and issued in such manner as may be prescribed subject to payment of fee as prescribed under subsection (7) of the Act.

3. Learned counsel submits that the application was filed by the petitioner on 09.09.2025 and the impugned endorsement has been issued on 18.11.2025 long after period of 30 days as prescribed in the provision. Learned counsel would therefore pray for similar orders as was passed in the said petition.

4. Learned HCGP however submits that the impugned order may be set aside while directing the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner having regard to the mandatory provisions that were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench, it is clear that there is no scope for directing re-consideration of the application filed by the petitioner. Moreover, the reason for rejection cited in the impugned endorsement is also not acceptable having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Vijayalakshmi & Ors vs Town Planning Member & Anr, reported in (2006) 8 SCC

502.

6. The application for conversion will have to be considered as