IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 110067 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. VITHAL PAI AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KELAGINA PALYA, HONAVAR-581334, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.S.PATIL AND SRI. SUHAS K.HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANJANNA E UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301, TQ: KARWAR, Digitally signed by MANJANNA E DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.13 16:40:21 +0530

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BHATKAL SUB-DIVISION, BHATKAL-581320, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

3. THE TAHASILDAR HONAVAR TALUK, HONAVAR-581334, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTARA KANNADA.

4. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYAT HONAVAR, HONAVAR-581334, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

5. SHRI. DEVIDAS S/O. LAXMAN PAI AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, KAMAKSHI STEEL CENTRE, MAIN BAZAAR ROAD, HONAVAR-581334, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. A.P.HEGDE, JANMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

SRI. SURESH S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.10.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO. BINSHETKI/ITARE/VIVA/E-

99228/2025-26 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 04.10.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, whereby, the order of conversion dated 05.05.1985 granted in respect of the land bearing Survey No.527/A/A8, Honnavar Town, Uttara Kannada District measuring 4 guntas 8 annas, converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural/commercial purpose has been cancelled after lapse of nearly 38 years.

Brief facts:

2. The land in question was originally agricultural land, upon an application made by the petitioner’s predecessors in interest, the competent authority accorded permission for conversion on 05.05.1985, permitting use of the land for non-agricultural/commercial purposes. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and has put up construction after obtaining necessary permission from the competent local authorities. Respondent No.5, who is an adjoining land owner, has been in long standing civil litigation with the petitioner and his predecessor in interest. The dispute pertained primarily to alleged encroachment, right of pathway and interference with possession and has been litigating with the petitioner for several decades. Multiple civil suits and appeals instituted by respondent No.5 either ended in dismissal or compromise. None of them resulted in setting aside the petitioner's title or possession. During pendency of the Civil litigation, respondent No.5 repeatedly lodged complaints before Revenue and Municipal Authorities, alleging encroachment and violation of conversion conditions.

3. Acting on such complaints, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings. Ultimately passed the impugned order dated 04.10.2025 canceling the conversion order of 1985. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has no statutory power to review or cancel a conversion order passed nearly four decades earlier, particularly when no fraud or misrepresentation is attributable to the petitioner. It is urged that the impugned order is vitiated by gross delay, arbitrariness and lack of jurisdiction and that the settled rights cannot be unsettled after such an inordinate lapse of time. It is contended that the authority has ignored binding findings of the civil Courts, survey re