SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 6976

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
D K SINGH AND S RACHAIAH
MR. VISHNU SHANKER SHUKLA – Appellant
Versus
M/S THE HAMLET – Respondent
WA 772/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. VISHNU SHANKER SHUKLA S/O HAZARILAL SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDENT AT #67 68 441 442 GREEN ACRES, BELLARY MAIN ROAD. DODDAJALA, BENGALURU – 562 157.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUSHANT TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NISHAN G.K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S THE HAMLET Digitally signed A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, by SREEDHARAN NO.11, KEMWELL HOUSE, BANGALORE SUSHMA TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA, LAKSHMI BANGALORE – 560 022.

Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER Court of Karnataka MR. ANURAG BAGARIA

2. NABS TECHPARK PVT. LTD.

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING OFFICE AT

4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, 3, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 042.

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ASHWIN SNCHETI S/O. MANOHARCHAND SANCHETI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

5. TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 064.

6. MR. MUNAIAHA S/O LATE LACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 157.

7. MR. ESHWARAPPA S/O LATE GUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 157.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3-R5;

SRI. P N MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAY N, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;

V/O DATED 22/5/25, NOTICE IN R/O R6 & R7 WAS DEFERRED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 15250 OF 2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

1. Heard Mr. Sushant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents No.3 to 5 and Mr. P.N. Manmohan for respondents No.1 and 2.

2. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.15250/2024.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. The petitioners had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, cancelling the conversion of their land for non-agricultural purposes dated 09.08.1996 and

05.09.1996.

5. The order of granting conversion came to be cancelled after 28 years on an application filed by the respondent No.6, the appellant herein. The land bearing Survey No.45 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas situated at Meenukunte Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, was converted for non-agricultural purposes by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.08.1996 and 05.09.1996. The respondent No.6 appears to have purchased some adjacent land by two registered sale deeds. The respondent No.6 has also neighbouring land. It appears that he also wanted the conversion of his land to non-agricultural purpose.

6. The respondent No.6 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2022, alleging that the conversion was granted in respect of the petitioners' land on the basis of wrong facts stated in the affidavit. It was stated that the petitioners have shown a road to reach their land through the respondent No.6 land, whereas no such road exists on the ground. Therefore, he requested the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the two conversion orders dated 09.08.1996 and 05.09.1996 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas.

7. The learned Single Judge, having noted the relevant provision and earlier decisions of this Court, has allowed the writ p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top