IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.101516 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SANTOSH S/O. SIDDAPPA MALAKANNAVAR, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. NO.284, AT/PO. MARIKATTI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591125.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

MANJANNA …RESPONDENT E (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA)

Digitally signed b y MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF Date: 2026.02.25 11:43:05 +0530 CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/01/2026 BEARING NUMBER NO.KAMSHA/LNA/VIVA-01/2025-26E-420659 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER LAND, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; 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

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the land bearing R.Sy.No.182/10 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas situated at Marikatti village, Bailhongal Taluk of Belagavi District. The petitioner submitted an application seeking conversion of the said land for non-agricultural purpose on 13.09.2024. The Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, after considering the application, passed an order of conversion on 25.10.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 the respondent- Deputy Commissioner cancelled the conversion order.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits identical cancellation orders dated 16.01.2026 were challenged before this Court in the case of Mallikarjun S/o Kallappa Bevoor Vs. the Deputy Commissioner (“Mallikarjun’s case” for short), wherein this Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order holding that the deputy commissioner has no jurisdiction to recall the conversion orders in the absence of statutory power of review and without compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the present petitioner stands on identical footing and is entitled to similar relief.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State does not dispute that the very same cancelling order dated 16.01.2026 has been quashed by this Court in respect of other land owners. 6. This Court in Mallikarjun’s case has held at paragraph Nos.14, 15 and 16 as under:

14. As stated supra, Section 95 (2)(iii)

contemplates cancellation in cases of false declaration or affidavit, however:

1 W.P.No.100522/2026 and connected matters disposed of on 09.02.2026.

(i) The impugned order does not record a specific finding of false affidavit.

(ii) No independent enquiry was conducted. (iii) No notice was issued to the petitioners.

15. Thus, the statutory condition precedent for invoking Section 95 (2) (iii) is absent. The cancellation orders were passed unilaterally. Even assuming statutory authority existed, cancellation of a vested right without notice is impermissible. The principle of audi alteram partem squarely applies and the impugned orders therefore suffer from lack of jurisdiction, absence of statutory review power and violation of natural justice. The pendency of acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, does not ipso facto invalidate the conversion order already granted under Section 95 of the KLR Act. The compensation issues are governed by the acquisition Law and not by unilateral cancellation of conversion. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to recall the conversion order and the impugned orders dated 16.01.2026 are ultra vires of Section 95 of the KLR Act and violative of natural