Karnataka HC Restores Auto-LPG Station NOC, Citing Existing Land-Conversion Order And DC’s Failure To Hear Operator On Neighbours’ Complaints

The petitioner operated an Auto LPG dispensing station on leased land in Bhatkal Taluk under a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Deputy Commissioner.

The land had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural commercial use under an order dated 26 March 2018 made under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

On 23 June 2026, the Deputy Commissioner revoked the NOC, citing local complaints about the station’s proximity to public and residential places, the alleged absence of proof of land conversion, and other stated grounds.

The petitioner challenged the revocation under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 empowers the competent authority to permit a change in land use; the conversion order in this case authorised non-agricultural commercial use.

The Court also applied the principles of procedural fairness: an authority should not revoke an NOC on the basis of complaints without giving the affected party an opportunity to respond and, as the Court observed, without furnishing the complaints for that response.

The NOC was also subject to conditions, including compliance with the applicable safety requirements; the Court left the Deputy Commissioner at liberty to act on any established violation after giving the petitioner a hearing and proceeding according to law.

The Court found that the stated ground of non-furnishing of conversion documents could not stand because the Deputy Commissioner himself had issued the 2018 order permitting the land’s conversion to non-agricultural commercial use.

As to the local complaints, the Deputy Commissioner had revoked the NOC unilaterally without calling upon the petitioner to respond or furnishing the complaints.

The Court therefore held the revocation unsustainable, while preserving the authority’s ability to take lawful action if a breach of the NOC’s terms were established after a fair hearing.

The NOC was restored.

The Deputy Commissioner may take further action for any violation of its terms, but only after giving the petitioner a sufficient opportunity of hearing and acting in accordance with law.