Basavaraju K N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Basavaraju K N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; impugned endorsement (Annexure-E dated 18.11.2025) issued by the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk quashed and set aside; Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's application for conversion and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; learned Additional Government Advocate permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 could lawfully have been issued by respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk, when the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to consider the conversion application. +1 more

Court's answer

It is the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority to consider the conversion application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; respondent No.3 - Tahsildar could not have issued such an endorsement.

Ratio / Principle

When the purchaser has bought the land from the khatedar and his name is admittedly reflected in the RTC, the Deputy Commissioner could not have issued such an endorsement; the only remedy available for the Deputy Commissioner is to direct initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, 1978; however, question of rejecting the application for conversion on that ground does not arise and the same is bad in law.

Key takeaways

The impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk is quashed and set aside, and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to reconsider the petitioner's conversion application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, at any rate within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land conversion (Sec. 95, Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964) - Purchaser from khatedar named in RTC - Rejection of conversion application by endorsement (Annexure-E dated 18.11.2025) issued by respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk, though the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority - Endorsement quashed and set aside - Only remedy on khatedar/RTC ground is direction to initiate proceedings under Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, 1978; rejection of conversion application on that ground does not arise and is bad in law - Deputy Commissioner directed to reconsider application within 6 weeks.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11476 WP No. 36655 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 36655 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJU K.N. S/O NANJAPPA, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT KODLAHALLI VILLAGE BALAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TQ., TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 121.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF LAND REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 201, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

THE TAHASILDAR, GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI-TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 216.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11476 WP No. 36655 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18/11/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.NIL VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.101/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HERUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected at the hands of respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, who is not a competent authority. The application was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, but the impugned endorsement at Annexure-E has been issued by the Tahsildar Gubbi Taluk, who is not the competent authority to consider the application under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11476 WP No. 36655 of 2025

HC-KAR

has purchased the land in question under sale deed dated 30.08.2025, pursuant to the sale deed, he was put in possession, revenue entries were certified in his favour. Application dated 16.09.2025 filed by the petitioner for grant of conversion of the land for non-agricultural use has been rejected by the Tahsildar.

This Court has held in several such cases, including W.P.No.5721/2021 dated 05.08.2025 that when the petitioner has purchased the lands from the khatedar of the land in question and admittedly his name is reflected in the RTC, the Deputy Commissioner could not have issued such an endorsement. The only remedy available for the Deputy Commissioner is to direct initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST PTCL Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act, 1978'). However question of rejecting the application for conversion on that ground does not arise and the same is bad in law. Further it is the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority to consider the conversion application and respondent No.3-Tahsildar could not have issued such an endorsement.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11476 WP No. 36655 of 2025

HC-KAR

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . The impugned endorsement at Annexure-E dated 18.11.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Commissioner shall reconsider the application for conversion filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31