Land conversion must await adjudication of pending competing claims to title.

The dispute concerns 8 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 232/2, Gamanagatti Village.

Occupancy rights in the land had been granted to tenants by the Land Tribunal in 1975 and 1977.

A registered sale deed dated 12 December 2006 was executed in favour of the petitioners, who later challenged a decree obtained by the former landowner in a suit to which they had not been made parties.

Their appeal against that decree remained pending, and the respondent had challenged the grant of leave to pursue the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The respondent, claiming rights through the former landowner, sought conversion of the land to non-agricultural use.

The Deputy Commissioner declined to proceed while the litigation was pending.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court quashed that endorsement and directed conversion; the petitioners then sought review and recall of that order.

1. Whether the order directing conversion of the disputed land should be reviewed and set aside while the parties’ competing claims to the land remain under adjudication.

2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s decision not to proceed with the conversion request during the pending proceedings could be sustained.

The Court considered the proceedings concerning occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act and the conversion request made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the earlier writ petition had invoked the proviso to Section 95(2) of that Act.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the procedural and factual position that the occupancy-right orders remained undisturbed, while the decree and the parties’ competing claims to the land were still the subject of pending proceedings.

Although the petitioners cited Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, in support of review, the Court did not discuss or apply that precedent in its reasoning.

The Court noted that the occupancy-right orders had attained finality and that the petitioners’ appeal against the subsequent civil decree, as well as the challenge to leave to pursue that appeal, remained pending.

In those circumstances, it considered that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision not to proceed with conversion could not, prima facie, be faulted.

The Court therefore set aside the earlier order directing conversion and restored the original writ petition so the dispute could be considered with the petitioners joined as parties.

It directed the respondent, who was the petitioner in the restored writ petition, to implead the present petitioners and ordered the restored petition to be listed on 7 October 2026.