IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 101228 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VIKRAM RICKABCHAND JAIN S/O. RICKABCHAND OCC. AGRICULURE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. #12, ARIHANT OPEL, FLAT NO. 002, FIRST FLOOR, SHESHADRIPURAM COLL, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDEV I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583102.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA)

MANJANNA E THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED Digitally signed by MANJANNA E ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED NIL BEARING NO. NIL PASSED BY THE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VIJAYANAGARA PRODUCED AS DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.21

11:31:23 +0530 ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONVERSION ORDER IN RESPECT TOTHE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 106/1 MEASURING 0.20 ACRES SITUATED AT SANKLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ. HOSAPETE, DISTRICT. VIJAYANAGARA; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 impugned endorsement dated nil passed by Deputy Commissioner, Vijayanagara (Annexure-B), rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking conversion of his land from agriculture use to non-agriculture and seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant conversion order in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.106/1 measuring 20 acres situated at Sanklapur village, Hosapete taluk, Vijayanagara district (‘petition property’ for short).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s land falls within the zone of the planning area and under the approved master plan and that the requirement of prior permission for conversion stands dispensed with, in view of Section 95(2)(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short). Despite there being an exemption, the petitioner to avoid technicality had made application seeking conversion of his land from agriculture use to non-agriculture in accordance with Section 95(2)(i) of the Act, which came to be mechanically rejected by the impugned endorsement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, to evidence that the petitioner’s land falls within the planning area, he has produced Master Plan at Annexure-C.

4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that if the petitioner’s land falls within the Master Plan as indicated in Annexure-C, the same would be considered by the Deputy Commissioner and on verification, appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The land in question according to the learned counsel for the petitioner falls within the Master Plan as indicated in Annexure-C and if the land falls within the Master Plan area, Section 95(2)(i) of the Act provides that seeking permission for conversion stands dispensed with. However, while issuing the impugned endorsement, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to verify whether the petitioner’s land is exempted under Section 95 of the Act. The impugned order appears to have been passed mechanically, without proper application of mind. Being a statutory authority, the respondent is duty-bound to examine the relevant materials and apply its mind before passing an order that affects the civil rights of the parties. The failure to do so renders the impugned endorsement unsustainable in law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned endorsement dated nil, passed by Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-B) is hereby set aside.

iii. The matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commi