Karnataka High Court
Mr. P S Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5069
WP No. 24060 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24060 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. P S MANJUNATH
S./O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND H P PETROL BUNK,
NISARGA LAYOUT,
HOSKOTE-562114
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed 2. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560052
3. HOSKOTE PLANNING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY
AND MEMBER SECRETARY,
MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD,
1ST CROSS,VENKATADRI LAYOUT,
HOSKOTE-562114.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5069
WP No. 24060 of 2024
HC-KAR
3RD FLOOR,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING
THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. HPA/LEGAL OPINION/2024-
25/1262 DTD 19.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY THE R-3 AS
THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT
OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT AND THE
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing the Endorsement bearing No.HPA/Legal Opinion/2024-25/1262 dated 19.08.2024 (Annexure-H) issued by the 3rd respondent as the same is illegal, arbitrary contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR 1 to 3 to consider the case of the Petitioner and hold that that the land coming within the jurisdiction of City Municipal Council, Hoskote lands of the Petitioner, there is no requirement of conversion of the land bearing Sy.No.111, 112, 113, and 114 situated at Hoskote Village and Taluk and Sy.No.114/1 and 114/2 measuring 1.224 Acres and 38 Guntas respectively situated at Dandupalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk and it would be deemed to be converted as held by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.100547/2024 as per Annexure-J c. Direct the contenting respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.111, 112, 113 and 114 of Hoskote Village and Sy.No.114/1 and Sy.No.114/2 measuring 1.24 Acres and 0.38 Guntas of Dandupalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk respectively.
3. The petitioner submitted a plan for sanction to the City Municipal Council along with a representation which is forwarded to respondent No.3-Hoskote Planning Authority. The Hoskote Planning Authority after obtaining a opinion of their advocate issued -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR endorsement on 19.08.2024 stating that in terms of Section 14 (2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as "KTCP Act, 1961") there is no necessary to get conversion from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short hereinafter referred to as "KLR Act, 1964") for lands falling within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council.
4. Respondent No.3 refused to consider the petitioner's case for approval of the plan on the grounds that the land had not been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. It is in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid relief.
5. Sri.Nanja Reddy., learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that;
5.1. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner falls within the planning limits of the Hoskote -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR Planning Authority, for which a Master Plan has been issued, and the said property is situated within the limits of the Hoskote City Municipal Council.
5.2. His submission is that subsequent to the land of the petitioner coming within the City Municipal Council and Master Plan being made applicable to the petitioner, there is no requirement of the petitioner seeking for conversion of the land and in that regard relies upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.Savitri Vs. The Deputy Commissioner1 more particularly para 4 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
4. It is needless to state that if the subject land falls within the corporation limits of Hubballi Dharwad Municipal Corporation, there is no requirement for obtaining conversion order or deposit conversion fine as stated under section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 5.3. By relying on Savitri's Case, he submits that the said decision is applicable in all fours to the 1 WP No.100547 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR present case and, as such, the insistence on the part of respondent No.3 for conversion under Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964, is not justifiable. Respondent No.3 ought to have sanctioned the plan, taking into consideration that the lands are deemed to have been converted for the purpose designated in the Master Plan, in terms of the aforesaid decision in Savitri's Case.
6. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa., learned counsel for respondent No.3 would that;
6.1. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. & The state of Telangana & Ors2 more particularly para 25, 70 and 71 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
25. It has been argued that Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was passed in the year 1976 w.e.f. 17.2.1976 and that the lands at Kukatpally became urban lands. Therefore, the urban lands are the lands situated within the 2 Civil Appeal No.7759-7760 of 2014 dated 13.09.2022 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan and where there is no master plan, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name called), a notified area committee, a town area committee, a city and town committee, a small-town committee, a cantonment board or a panchayat. Therefore, with the enactment of the aforesaid Act, the agricultural land changed to non-agricultural urban land.
70. Similarly, the argument that the land now falls within the urban agglomeration in view of the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is again not tenable. Firstly, the said Act stands repealed on 22.3.1999. Still further, the mere fact that the land has come within the municipal limits would not make the land as non-agricultural land. It only means that the land within the municipal limits can be utilized or the buildings be constructed in terms of the provisions of the Municipal Laws applicable thereto.
71. Similarly, the argument that the land in question falls with the Zonal Development Plan for Kukatpally as per the communication of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is again not tenable. The Zonal Development Plan is future planning of the development of the area. Thus, in future, the land can be used only according to Zonal Development Plan but that does not mean that the agricultural nature of the land has ceased to exist. Therefore, the said communication is also not tenable. 6.2. By relying on Gulf Oil Corporation's Case his submission is that the land that comes within the Municipal limit would not make the land as -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR non-agricultural land and as such there would be requirement for the landowner to apply for conversion in terms of Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964.
7. Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would refer to the provision to Section 14 of the KTCP Act, 1961 he submits that the conversion under Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964 is required to be obtained for purpose of use of the land in the manner prescribed under the Master Plan.
8. Heard Sri.Nanja Reddy.P.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Spoorthi.V., learned HCGP appearing for respondents No.1 and 4, Sri.Yogesh D.Naik., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri.A.V.Gangadharppa., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused papers.
9. The short question that would arise for consideration is;
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR "If an agriculture land coming within the jurisdiction of the City Municipal Council would there be a requirement for conversion proceedings to be taken up under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964?"
10. The above issue is no longer res integra, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Savitri's Case categorically held that once the land comes within City Municipal Council limited there would be no requirement to seek for conversion of land.
11. The decision in Gulf Oil Corporation Case which has been referred to by learned counsel for respondent No.3 again reiterates the said position inasmuch as what the Hon'ble Apex Court has held is that the mere fact that the land has come within the municipal limit would not make the land as non- agriculture land but has gone to hold that it only means that the land within the municipal limits can
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5069 WP No. 24060 of 2024 HC-KAR be utilised or the buildings be constructed in terms of provisions of the municipal laws applicable thereto.
12. It is further clarified that in future the land can be used only according to the Zonal Development Plan which would mean that the usage of the land for the purpose designated in Zonal Development Plan is permitted once the land comes within the direction of the City Municipal Council. The said decision does not in any manner require a conversion to be obtained under Section 95 of the KLR Act, 1964 but restricts the usage of the land to that purpose which has been so designated under Zonal Development Plan.
13. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the endorsement bearing
No.HPA/Legal Opinion/2024-25-1262 dated
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5069
WP No. 24060 of 2024
HC-KAR
19.08.2024 issued by respondent No.3 at
Annexure-H is quashed.
iii. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in terms of the above observations and grant such sanction as may be necessary in respect of the petitioner's land, in accordance with the zoning of the said land under the Master Plan.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8