Conversion order revoked on peculiar facts; Deputy Commissioner’s power to revoke remains open.

The petitioner had obtained conversion orders dated 23 December 2025 permitting agricultural land in Survey Nos. 121//1 and 121//2, Yergera village, Raichur Taluk, to be used for non-agricultural purposes.

He later sought cancellation of those orders, stating that he could not develop the land and that the conversion conditions had been violated.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the request on 16 July 2026, stating that there was no provision to cancel or revoke a conversion order.

The petitioner challenged that endorsement and sought cancellation of the conversion orders and restoration of the land’s agricultural status in the revenue records.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s request to cancel or revoke the conversion order was liable to be quashed.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s request for cancellation or withdrawal of the conversion order should be allowed.

The Court considered Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which governs conversion of agricultural land, but expressly left open the general question whether a conversion order made under that provision can be revoked, withdrawn, cancelled, or rescinded.

It followed the coordinate Bench decision in Syed Noorul Hasan Zaffer v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, W.P. No. 203576/2026 (20 August 2026), which had followed Manchal Raghavendra & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.P. No. 202659/2026 (31 July 2026).

The relief in those decisions was confined to the peculiar facts of the cases and was not to be treated as precedent on the general question of revocability.

The petitioner’s request concerned conversion orders for land that he said he could not develop and in respect of which conversion conditions had been violated.

The Court considered the coordinate Bench decision in Syed Noorul Hasan Zaffer squarely applicable and followed its approach, allowing the petitioner’s application and directing the Deputy Commissioner to cancel, revoke, or withdraw the conversion order.

The Court limited its ruling to the particular facts and expressed no opinion on the general legal question under Section 95.

The Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner’s endorsement dated 16 July 2026 and allowed the petitioner’s application dated 13 July 2026 seeking revocation, cancellation, or withdrawal of the conversion order dated 23 December 2025.

It directed the Deputy Commissioner to cancel, revoke, or withdraw that order concerning Survey Nos. 121/*/1 and 121/*/2, each measuring 27 guntas, at Yergera village.

The general question of whether conversion orders under Section 95 may be revoked was left open; no costs were ordered.