IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100341 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNEER SIDDIQUE S/O. LATE MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE SAAB, OCC: AGRICULTURE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA ROAD, T:. HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGARA-583201.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANT S.CHATNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

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

G IRIJA A. BYAHATTI THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDER DATED NILL BEARING NO. NILL PASSED BY Digitally signed by THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VIJAYANAGARA PRODUCED AS GIRIJA A.

BYAHATTI ANNEXURE-B BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER Date:

2026.01.22 SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OFF DIRECTION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF

15:27:08 +0530 MANAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT THE CONVERSION ORDER IN RESPECT TO THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 70/A MEASURING 3.50 ACRES SITUATED AT JAMBUNATHANAHALLI 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

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the endorsement (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent, wherein the Deputy Commissioner by an impugned endorsement rejected the petitioner's application for conversion of his agricultural land to non-agricultural land.

3. Brief facts:

The petitioner claims to have purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.71/A, measuring 3.50 acres, situated at Jambunathanahalli Village, Hospete Taluk, Vijayanagara District, through a registered sale deed dated 21.10.2005. Pursuant to which, the petitioner made an application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 (‘KLR Act’ for short) seeking conversion of the said land for non-agricultural commercial purposes.

The said application came to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the land is brought within the limits of Municipal Council, the provisions of KLR Act ceased to apply. It is further contended that the Commissioner of Hosapete City Municipal Council has issued an endorsement indicating that the subject land falls within Municipal limits, and therefore, by operation of law, there is a deemed conversion.

5. Learned counsel places reliance on the decision this Court in the case of J.M. Narayana and Ors. vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore, ILR 2005 KAR 60., and in the case of M/s Chamundi Associates vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, W.P.No.26700/2016 (Disposed on 02.06.2023), to contend that insistence on conversion order under Section

95 of KLR act is unsustainable when the land is within Municipal limits.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M.Narayana and others (supra) has held at Para 5, which reads thus;

“5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. It is not disputed that the suit property stands included within the Corporation limits in terms of a notification issued much earlier to the filing of the suit. As a result of such inclusion, the taxes applicable within the Corporation limits would by operation of law and in particular Section 4 Sub-section 4 of the Municipal Corporation Act become applicable to the extended area also. Even assuming that the land in question was agricultural land before its inclusion in the Corporation limits, the same would not necessarily mean that it either continued to pay land revenue nor would such land be exempted from payment of property tax under the said Act. As rightly pointed out by Mrs.Patil, Section 110 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, exempts the payment of property tax qua only such lands as are registered t