Sri. v. Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. V. VINOD @ VINOD KUMAR S/O. D.VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A WARD NO. 19, RAJIVE NAGAR VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 135.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVAHAHALLLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 110.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:18823 WP No. 39480 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DODDABALLAPURA

¶22

BENGALURU RURAL DIST-561 203.

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI

¶24

BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562 110.

¶25

SRI. R. KESHAVA S/O. LATE. P. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A MANDIBELE VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 110.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE -A DATED. 31.01.2025 MADE IN BRDC-JUDIOMQL/140/2024 COMP. NO. 417213, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

¶33

for respondents No.1 to 4. Notice to respondent No.5 is

¶34

not necessary for the following reasons:

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:18823 WP No. 39480 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader raises a preliminary objection that Annexure-R is the representation given by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner to cancel the order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.03.2020 and such an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 is appealable before the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Further, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the impugned communication at Annexure-A made by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that having regard to the contention of the petitioner that the lands in question were granted in favour of Donnappa, S/o Kadirappa, who belongs to Schedule Caste community, directions have been issued to the Assistant Commissioner to initiate proceedings under the PTCL Act, which is for the

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:18823 WP No. 39480 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

benefit of the petitioner and the petitioner could not have questioned the same.

¶43

There is substance in the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader. If the petitioner wants to question the order of conversion, then the petitioner may approach the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Insofar as Annexure-A is concerned, since directions have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner to initiate proceedings under the PTCL Act, it would be for the benefit of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not precluded from filing a petition before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶44

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.

¶45