JAYASHREE JATTAPPA NAIK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 105891 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

JAYASHREE JATTAPPA NAIK
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O K H B ROAD, HURULISALA,
VENKATAPURA, BHATKALA 581320.
…PETITIONER



(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU 560001.



2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR 581301.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
UTTAR KANNADA 581301.



Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench

4. TAHASHILDAR,
OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, BHATKAL 581320.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION
QUASHING IMPUGNED REPORT/ENDORSEMENT/ORDER DATED
26.05.2026 PASSED AT ANNEXURE-J BY RESPONDENT NO.4, TO
QUASH ORDER DATED 27/05/2026 ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3, AND ALSO DATED 10/06/2026 BY RESPONDENT
NO.2, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:
“a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ /
order/direction quashing impugned report/
Endorsement/order dated 26.05.2026 passed at
Annexure-J by Respondent no.4, to quash order dated
27/05/2026 Annexure-K passed by Respondent no.3, and
also dated 10/06/2026 by Respondent no.2, in the ends of
justice.

b) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
or order or direction directing respondents to pass the
order for Conversion of land use from agricultural to
commercial land in so far as 18 Guntas 8 Anas of Sy.
No.220......

c) Any other relief deemed fit in the eyes of law be
awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice and
equity.”


2. Case of the petitioner is that he purchased an extent of 31
guntas 8 anas out of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.220/A5/4 of
Belake Village in terms of deed of sale dated 17.07.2012
out of which 13 guntas has been acquired by the National
Highway Authority of India and the remaining portion of
land is left with the petitioner which is 18 guntas 8 anas.

3. Petitioner applied for permission for change of land usage
from agriculture to commercial purposes, which has been

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


rejected on 10.06.2026 by the impugned endorsement at
Annexure-L stating that “rejected based on the Tahasildar
report”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this
Court to the report of the Tahasildar dated 26.05.2026
produced at Annexure-J submits that the Tahasildar has
opined that since the land was granted originally for
agriculture purposes, the same has to be utilized only for
that purpose and there cannot be provision for conversion.
The document at Annexure-K is the report of the Assistant
Commissioner, who has recommended to accept the report
of Tahasildar, based on which the impugned order at
Annexure-L has been passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that originally
the land in Sy.No.220 measured 312 acres which was
granted to various people during the year 1977 and the
said land has been transferred to various persons in
various bits and pieces. He further submits that the land
has now lost the agriculture nature inasmuch as the very
same revenue authorities have granted permission for

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


change of land usage from agriculture non-agriculture
purposes and only the case of petitioner has been
selectively discriminated.

6. He refers to documents at Annexure-M series to point out
various portions of the land having been converted from
agriculture to non-agriculture purposes based on the
report of the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner.
Hence, he submits that the respondent-Authorities are not
justified in holding that the land of the petitioner
measuring 18 guntas 8 anas has to be retained in its
original agriculture nature. Hence, submits there is a
palpable discrimination meted out to the petitioner in
considering his application.

7. Learned HCGP points out that apart from the said reason
of agriculture land, there is another reason assigned by the
Tahasildar namely there is no uploading of the technical
information, whether or not the land having been classified
as deforest land.

8. Learned HCGP looking into Annexure-M series, however
fairly submits that if the petitioner claims that the other

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


portion of the very same survey number has been
considered for conversion, the Authorities will consider the
application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

9. Heard. Perused the records.

10. The report of the Tahasildar produced at Annexure-J to the
writ petition indicate that the Tahasildar opined that since
the land was granted for agriculture purposes, it has to be
retained for that purpose alone and cannot be permitted to
be used for any other purpose. Annexure-K is the report of
the Assistant Commissioner, who has recommended to act
upon the said report of the Tahasildar. Annexure-L is the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the
request of the petitioner, accepting the report of
Tahasildar.

11. Perusal of documents at Annexure-M series would indicate
that several other portions of the land in the very same
Sy.No.220 has been accorded permission for change of
land usage from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes.

12. In that view of the matter, there is no justification in the
respondent-Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


application of the petitioner based on the Tahasildar
report. Even if the reason for rejection of the application is
as pointed by learned HCGP lack of information as to
whether or not the land is classified as deforest land, the
said reason ought not to have been the ground for
rejection.

13. In any event the impugned order does not indicate the
actual reason for rejection, i.e. whether the rejection is
due to the land required to be maintained as agriculture
land or for lack of information as to whether it is classified
as a deforest land.

14. In that view of the matter, the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner shall reconsider the application of the
petitioner and provide specific reason. If the respondent-
Deputy Commissioner were to act upon the report of the
Tahasildar to the extent land to be treated and maintained
as agriculture land, he shall also look into the documents
at Annexure-M series and if the portions of the very same
land have been converted, he shall proceed to consider the
application of the petitioner for conversion in accordance

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17905
WP No. 105891 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020126292026


with law. If the reason is non-availability of information
regarding classification of deforest land, he shall ascertain
the same and pass appropriate order in that regard as
well.

15. Such exercise shall be undertaken and order one way or
the other shall be passed within an outer limit of 90 days
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

16. Petition is accordingly disposed of .


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4