Karnataka High Court
Khalid Afzal vs The Deputy Commissioner on 14 July, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.201917 OF 2026 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. KHALID AFZAL S/O FAZAL AFZAL,
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O AFZALPUR, TQ. AFZALPUR
DIST. KALABURAGI-585301.
2. MOHAMMED SHAFIUDDIN
S/O MOHAMMED FAFIUDDIN MANNUR,
PLOT NO.11-1041/35/47/A
MADINA COLONY, MSK MILL RING ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
3. SHAIK CHAND S/O SHAIK MAHIBOOB SAB,
PLOT NO.7-29, SADAR MOHALLA, MOMINPURA
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN
KALABURAGI-585104.
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HALALLI S. S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI SUB-DIVISION,
KALABURAGI-585101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
AFZALPUR TALUQ,
AFZALPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE REPORT OF THE TAHASILDAR
DATED 19-11-2025 VIDE NO. ¸ À .PÀA/PÀÈ.AiÉÄÃ/89/2025-26 ANNEXURE-
s A
H ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR AND AN
ENDORSEMENT ORDER REJECTED ON 27-11-2025 VIDE
APPLICATION NO. 808274 DATED 11-05-2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE- IN RESPECT OF SY NO. 634/9 MEASURING 01
ACRE 29 GUNTAS SITUATED AT AFZALPUR, DISTRICT
KALABURAGI ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-J II) ISSUE A DIRECTION
DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO
ISSUE DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR CONVERSION OF LAND SY NO. 634/9
MEASURING 01 ACRE 29 GUNTAS SITUATED AT AFZALPUR,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI, III) OR TO PASS OTHER ORDER AS
THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following
reliefs:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or
direction quashing the report of the Tahasildar dated
19.11.2025 vide No.¸ÀA.PÀA/PÀÈ.AiÉÄÃ/89/2025-26 Annexure-
H issued by respondent Tahasildar and an endorsement
order rejected on 27.11.2025 vide Application
No.808274 dated 11.05.2025 vide Annexure- in
respect of Sy.No.634/9 measuring 01 acre 29 guntas
situated at Afzalpur, District Kalaburagi issued by the
1st respondent Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J.
ii) Issue a direction directing the 1st respondent
Deputy Commissioner to issue direction to reconsider
application of the petitioners for conversion of land
Sy.No.634/9 measuring 01 acre 29 guntas situated at
Afzalpur, District Kalaburagi, in the interest of justice
and equity.
iii) Or to pass any other order as this Hon’ble
Tribunal deems fit under the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate for the
respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that on 07.12.1981, the Land Tribunal granted land
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
bearing Sy.No.648, 651 and 634 of Afzalpur, Kalaburagi
District in favour of Niyamat Afzal in pursuance of which
he paid the premium amount and form No.II was issued in
his favour registering him as an occupant of the said
lands. From out of the said lands, the petitioners
purchased subject land bearing Sy.No.634/9 measuring 1
acres 29 guntas vide registered sale deed dated
13.03.2024. Meanwhile, aggrieved by the mutation order/
entry dated 09.08.2017 entering the name of the
Karnataka Wakf Board in respect of Sy.No.634, the
petitioner vendor, Niyamat Afzal preferred
WP No.201167/2023, which was allowed by this Court vide
final order dated 06.04.2023 directing deletion of the
name of the Wakf Board and restoring the name of the
petitioners vendor who thereafter sold the subject land in
favour of the petitioner as stated supra.
4. On 11.05.2025, petitioner filed an application
along with affidavit and documents etc. in the prescribed
format/form seeking conversion of the subject land under
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for
short ‘KLR Act‘). The said request for conversion was
rejected by the respondent by issuing the impugned
endorsement at Annexure-J dated 27.11.2025 on the
ground that the subject land was a Wakf/Inam land and as
such it is impermissible to grant conversion in favour of
the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement
declining/ refusing to grant conversion of the subject land
in favour of the petitioners for non-agricultural purposes,
petitioners are before this Court by way of the present
petition.
5. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition and referring to the
material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners
invited my attention to the impugned endorsement in
order to contend that the only/ sole reason assigned by
the respondent-Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of
declining/refusing to grant conversion is by holding that
the subject land is a Wakf/Inam land and therefore,
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
cannot be converted/diverted for non-agricultural
purposes. In this context, it is submitted that apart from
the fact that the subject land was not the Wakf/Inam land
and the petitioner is the absolute owner in lawful and
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land
with the khata standing in his name and he was paying
taxes, the said reason assigned by the respondent in
declining/ refusing to grant conversion is not only contrary
to the provisions contained in Section 95 of the KLR Act,
which merely mandates that conversion is to be granted in
favour of the kathedar/owner without reference to the
nature of the land being Wakf/Inam land or Inam land. It
is therefore submitted that the impugned endorsement
deserves to be quashed and the request of the petitioner
for conversion/ diversion of the subject land for non-
agricultural purposes be granted in favour of the
petitioner.
6. It is also submitted that the vendor of the
petitioners acquired the subject land vide grant in his
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
favour and the revenue record having been transferred to
his name, the name of Wakf board was deleted pursuant
to the order passed by this Court dated 06.04.2023 in WP
No.201167/2023 in pursuance of which he sold subject
land in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed
dated 13.03.2024. It is further submitted that the other
portions of land in the very same survey number have
already been converted for non-agricultural purposes.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate would support the impugned endorsement and
submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be necessary to extract the impugned endorsement
at Annexure-J, which is as under.
“ENDORSEMENT ORDER
Your application number 808274 Date
11/5/2025 2:16:29 PM for conversion to
Residential purpose of Land survey number 634*9 in
District KALABURAGI Taluk Afzalpur hobli has been
rejected on 11/27/2025 3:46:28 PM
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
Reason: vÀº²
À ïÁÝggÀ ÀÄ D¥sd
À ®¥ÀÆgÀªg À À ªÀg¢ À ¢£ÁAPÀ
18.11.2025 gÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸Àzj À d«ÄãÀÄ E£ÁªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀPÀá
d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀz Û .É E£ÁA d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀPª Àë ÀÄ ¥Áæ¢P ü ÁgÀ¢AzÀ
C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqzÉ À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À°¹
è gÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÁgÀt wgÀ¸j ÀÌ ¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ
ªÀg¢À ¸À°¹è gÀÄvÁÛg.É vÀº² À ïÁÝgg
À ÀÄ D¥sd
À ®¥ÀÆgÀ gÀªg À À ªÀg¢
À
DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸Àzj À CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EzÉà ºÀAvÀz° À è wgÀ¸j ÀÌ ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
Hence, your Reconversion application is rejected.
Officer Name: –
Designation: Deputy Commissioner
KALABURAGI.”
9. A perusal of the impugned endorsement will
clearly indicate that the only/sole reason assigned by the
respondent for the purpose of declining/refusing to grant
conversion is by stating that the subject land is a
Wakf/Inam land and therefore, the conversion cannot be
granted; in this context, it is relevant to state that so long
as the petitioner was the owner and kathedar of the
subject land with the revenue record/ROR/RTC standing in
his name, the said reason which is without any factual
foundation or basis could not have been cited by the
respondent for the purpose of declining grant of
conversion in accordance with Section 95 of the KLR Act,
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
which mandates that conversion is to be granted in favour
of the petitioner, who was the owner and kathedar of the
subject land.
10. In addition there to, in the case of Deputy
Commissioner V/s Mohd Sufwan Ul Hoq, WA
No.200196/2024 dated 11.11.2024, this Court has
held as under:
“ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This intra Court writ appeal has been filed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar District, calling in question order dated
12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP.No.200162/2024.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent brings to the notice
of this Court the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.200007/2022 which was filed by the
very same appellant herein in respect of similar orders passed
in Writ Petition No.201968/2017 dated 05.03.2021. The co-
ordinate Bench also considered the judgment cited on behalf of
the State and the Deputy Commissioner that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Syed Ali and Others Vs.
Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board 1998 (2) SCC 642 AIR 1998
SC 972 has held that when the property is notified as wakf
property, it would be a permanent dedication. On the contrary,
the co-ordinate Bench upheld the contentions of the original
writ petitioner that this Court in the case of Karnataka State
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
Board of Wakfs and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and
Others and Connected matters in WA.No.5591/2011 (GM-
Wakf) c/w Appeal No.379/2012 has held that grant orders
were passed in favour of the original owner in the year 1987
and the said order remained unchallenged and therefore, claim
that the property is Wakf property, is unsustainable.
Consequently, having noticed the provisions contained in
Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which
provides for a deeming provision and the fact that the
endorsement was issued by the Deputy Commissioner after the
lapse of the mandatory period prescribed therein, the co-
ordinate Bench proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the
State and the Deputy Commissioner. It is also pointed out that
the State and the Deputy Commissioner had further taken up
the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
No.53315/2023 and the said SLP was dismissed on 14.05.2024.
In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that since similar appeals filed by the appellants
herein have been dismissed earlier and the same having been
confirmed at the hands of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ
appeal also should be dismissed.
3. Having heard the learned Government Advocate, learned
counsel for the respondent and on perusing the appeal papers,
this Court is of the considered opinion that whatever had to be
done by the Deputy Commissioner was required to be done
within the stipulated period of 07 days. However, insofar as the
claim of the respondent herein is concerned, it will be open for
the respondent to redress its grievance in accordance with law.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, in terms of Sub-section (2)
of Section 95 of the Act is permitted to verify from the
documents submitted along with applications as to whether the
occupant of the land assessed or held for the purpose of
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
agriculture is the registered Khatedhar. Having regard to the
fact that, the original writ petitioner submitted the Record Of
Rights which shows that the name of the original writ petitioner
is entered in the Record Of Rights as the owner and occupant of
the property in question, then, it would not be open for the
Deputy Commissioner to contend that the land in question is a
wakf property. Further, since the Deputy Commissioner has
failed to consider the application or issue any endorsement, it is
a clear case of deemed conversion. We therefore, proceed to
uphold the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Consequently, we proceed to dismiss the writ appeal.”
11. So also in the case of in the case of Deputy
Commissioner V/s Siddappa, WA No.200195/2024,
dated 11.11.2024, this Court has held as under:
“ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This intra Court writ appeal has been filed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bidar District, calling in question order dated
12.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP.No.200305/2024.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent brings to the notice of
this Court orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No.200007/2022 which was filed by the very same
appellant herein in respect of similar orders passed in Writ
Petition No.201968/2017 dated 05.03.2021. The co-ordinate
Bench also considered the judgment cited on behalf of the State
and the Deputy Commissioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Syed Ali and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
Wakf Board 1998 (2) SCC 642 AIR 1998 SC 972 has held
that when the property is notified as wakf property, it would be
a permanent dedication. On the contrary, the co-ordinate Bench
upheld the contentions of the original writ petitioner that this
Court in the case of Karnataka State Board of Wakfs and
Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others and Connected
matters in WA.No.5591/2011 (GM-Wakf) c/w Appeal
No.379/2012 has held that grant orders were passed in
favour of the original owner in the year 1987 and the said order
remained unchallenged and therefore, claim that the property is
Wakf property, is unsustainable. Consequently, having noticed
the provisions contained in Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act which provides for a deeming provision and the
fact that the endorsement was issued by the Deputy
Commissioner after the lapse of the mandatory period
prescribed therein, the co-ordinate Bench proceeded to dismiss
the appeal filed by the State and the Deputy Commissioner. It
is also pointed out that the State and the Deputy Commissioner
had further taken up the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No.53315/2023 and the said SLP was
dismissed on 14.05.2024. In that view of the matter, learned
counsel for the respondent would submit that since similar
appeals filed by the appellants herein have been dismissed
earlier and the same having been confirmed at the hands of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ appeal also should be
dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would further
submit that Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has
further undergone amendment in terms of the Karnataka Land
Revenue (Second Amendment) Act, 2022 whereby Clause (2) of
Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act mandates that, if the
land does not fall within the local planning area, then the
concerned authorities shall furnish their opinion within 15 days
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
from the date of receipt of the application. The Deputy
Commissioner is bound to issue the approval for diversion for
use as per the application subject to the opinion furnished by
the concerned authorities and subject to payment of fee
prescribed under Sub-section (7), within 15 days. If the
concerned authorities fail to furnish the opinion within 15 days,
it shall be deemed that the concerned authorities have no
objection to the said diversion of land. Further, if the Deputy
Commissioner fails to give his decision and issue the order
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, the
approval for diversion for use shall be deemed to have been
granted by the Deputy Commissioner and the same shall be
certified and issued in the manner, as may be prescribed,
subject to payment of the fee prescribed under Sub-section (7).
4. Having heard the learned Government Advocate, learned
counsel for the respondent and on perusing the appeal papers,
this Court is of the considered opinion that whatever had to be
done by the Deputy Commissioner was required to be done
within the stipulated period of 07 days.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, in terms of Sub-section (2) of
Section 95 of the Act is permitted to verify from the documents
submitted along with applications as to whether the occupant of
the land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture is the
registered Khatedhar. Having regard to the fact that, the
original writ petitioner submitted the Record Of Rights which
shows that the name of the original writ petitioner is entered in
the Record Of Rights as the owner and occupant of the property
in question, then, it would not be open for the Deputy
Commissioner to contend that the land in question is a wakf
property. Further, since the Deputy Commissioner has failed to
consider the application or issue any endorsement, it is a clear
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
case of deemed conversion. We therefore, proceed to uphold
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. Consequently, we proceed to dismiss the writ appeal.”
12. Similarly in the case of Karantaka State
Board of Wakf V/s The Land Tribunal, WP
No.13733/2007, dated 07.09.2007, this Court held as
under:
“ORDER
By the impugned order, the Tribunal granted occupancy
rights in favour of respondents 8 and 9 over the land bearing
Sy.No.217 measuring 20 acres 12 guntas and in favour of
respondent no.10 over the land bearing Sy.No.140 measuring 21
acres 06 guntas. By the very order, the Tribunal has rejected the
application in respect of Sy.No.141.
2. The record shows that father of respondents No.8
and 9 filed application for grant of occupancy rights over the land
bearing Sy.No.217 measuring 20 acres 12 guntas situated at
Balurgi Village whereas the respondent No.10 filed application for
grant of occupancy rights over the land bearing Sy.Nos.140 and
141 of Gour (K) village. As aforementioned, the Tribunal granted
occupancy rights in favour of respondents 8, 9 (after demise of
their father) and 10 over the land bearing Sy.Nos.217 and 140
separately.
3. The petitioners are the State & District Wakf Board.
It is contended on behalf of Wakf Board that the properties are
registered in Karnataka Board of Wakf on 20th June, 1974. the
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
notification to the said effect is produced at Annexure-A. In this
view of the matter, it is contended that since the properties are
vested in the Wakf Board, the occupancy rights should not be
granted in favour of the respondents. The judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of SAYYED ALI AND OTHERS vs. ANDHRA
PRADESH WAKF BOARD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS (AIR 1998
SUPREME COURT972) is relied on by the petitioner to contend
that the occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act
cannot be granted in favour of the tenants over the properties
which are registered in the name of Wakf Board.
4. The tenanted properties in question stood, vested
in the State Government on 1.3.1974 (appointed day) on which
date the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was amended substantially.
The said aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Thus, it is clear
that even prior to the notification Annexure-A dated 20th June,
1974, the properties stood vested in the State Government in
pursuance to the provisions of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act. As the properties were vested in the State in
pursuance to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
the tenants would get right to get themselves registered as
occupants. Consequently, the father or respondents 8, 9 and 10
acquired right for grant of occupancy rights. Thus, the
notification Annexure-A cannot be of any help to the petitioner
inasmuch as the same is issued after 1.3.1974.
Added to it, as aforementioned, the father of respondents
8 and 9 filed application over the land bearing Sy.No.217 of
Balurgi village and respondent No.10 applied for the land bearing
Sy.No.140 of Gour (K) village. The Tribunal by the impugned
order, granted occupancy rights over aforesaid lands in favour of
respondents 8, 9 and 10. (In the meanwhile, father of
respondents 8 and 9 expired and therefore the Tribunal granted
occupancy rights in favour of respondents 8 and 9.) Whereas the
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
notification Annexure-A dated 20th June, 1974 pertains to the
land bearing Sy.No.217 of Jevargi ‘B’ village and not Belurgi
village. So also, the notification Annexure-A does not relate to
Sy.No.140 of Gour (K) village but the same pertains to Sy.No.140
of Bhosga village. Thus, the notification Annexure-A does not
relate to the properties in question. Hence, the argument
advanced on behalf of the petitioners relying on Annexure-A
notification cannot be sustained.
5. The Tribunal, while granting occupancy rights, has
considered the factual aspects and came to the conclusion that
the respondents 8 to 10 are in possession of the respective lands.
The names of respondents 8 and 9 have been entered in the
revenue records from the year 1963-64 over the land bearing
Sy.No.217. It is pointed out that even till this day, the names of
respondents 8 and 9 appear in the revenue record. In this view
of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned
order.
Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
13. Similarly in the case of Karantaka State
Board of Wakf V/s The Land Tribunal,
WA No.117/2008, dated 25.11.2008, this Court held
as under:
“ORDER
This writ appeal is filed by the Wakf Board being
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 13733/2007 passed on 7.9.2007.
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging
the order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the Land ‘Tribunal-first
respondent (Annexure-E to the writ petition) by which
respondent No.9 herein was registered as a tenant in respect
of Sy.No.219 to an extent of 21.06 acres of land of Gour (K)
Village and her claim in respect of 20.16 acres in Sy. No.141
of the said village was rejected while respondent Nos.7 and 8
were registered as tenants in respect of 20.12 acres in
Sy.No.217 of Balurgi Village.
3. One Revana Siddappa husband of respondent No.7
and father of respondent No.8 had claimed occupancy rights
in respect of Sy. No.217 to an extent of 20.12 acres as well as
other survey numbers. By an order dated 7.7.1981, the Land
Tribunal registered his name as a tenant of the said land, but
while entering his name in the records, it was stated as 2.8
acres. Therefore, he filed an application seeking amendment,
but the said application was rejected on the ground that the
Tribunal had no provision for making an amendment. He had
challenged the said order in W.P.No.8329/82 and by an order
dated 2.2.1985, this court set aside the order of the Land
Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. When
things stood thus, respondent No.9 had filed an application
under the Inam Abolition Act requesting the Land Tribunal to
conduct an enquiry and registered her name as a tenant in
respect of the land in Sy. Nos.140 and 141 and by an order
dated 2.1.1982 the Land Tribunal held in her favour and
registered her as a tenant. The said order was challenged by
the appellant herein in W P. No.30439/93 before this court
and by an order dated 16.10.2000, the matter was remanded
to the Land ‘Tribunal for fresh enquiry.
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
4. In the meanwhile, the husband of Meharunnisa
Begum respondent No.9 herein and his brother Moinuddin
Afzalpur Khaji-respondent No.10 herein, had filed an
application under the Inam Abolition Act and after conducting
an enquiry, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in
respect of Sy.No.217 by its order dated 16.4.2002 while
rejecting the claim in respect of Sy.os. 140 and 141 in respect
of which the Writ Petition No.35600/04 was filed before this
court. Therefore, as far as Sy.Nos.217 is concerned, there
were two claims, one by Revanasiddappa and the other by
Khaji before the Tribunal. After conducting an enquiry, the
Land Tribunal registered Khaji as a tenant in respect of
Sy.No.217 and rejected his claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 140
and 141.
5. The said order of rejection was challenged by
respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein as purchasers in W. P. Nos.
29757-29759/2002 also filed W P.No.8329/82 challenging the
rejection order dated 2.2.1985 and this court directed the
Land Tribunal to conduct fresh enquiry. Since the Land
Tribunal had granted occupancy rights on 16.4.2002 iri
respect of Sy.No.217 in favour of Meharunnisa Begum Khaji,
the said order was challenged by respondent Nos.7 and 8
herein in W.P.No.29491/2004 before this court and after
hearing, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
enquiry. Bri. Gulam Ahmed Khezi Sab husband of respondent
No.9 W.P.No.35600/04 challenging the had order filed dated
16.4.2004 in respect of rejection of the claim as far as Sy.
Nos. 140 and 141 were concerned by the Land Tribunal by its
order dated 16.4.2002. Therefore, the four sets of writ
petitions mentioned above were heard together and
remanded for fresh enquiry.
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
6 As per the directions of this court, the Land Tribunal
served notices on the concerned persons and heard the
respective parties and by its order dated 21.7.2007 ordered
that Meharunnisa Begum respondent No.9 herein should be
registered as a tenant in respect of 21.06 acres of land in
Sy.No.217 of Gaur (K) Village and rejected her claim with
regard to Sy.No.141 of Gour (K) Village to an extent of 20.16
acres and Sy.No.217 to an extent of 20.12 acres was
registered in the name of respondent Nos.7 and 8. The said
order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the appellant
herein on the ground that the properties are registered in the
Karnataka State Board of Wakf on 20.6.1974 as per
notification at Annexure-A and therefore, the occupancy rights
could not have been granted in favour of the respondents.
7. The contention of the appellant was that since the
properties were vested in the Waki Board, occupancy rights
could not be granted in favour of the respondents. The
learned single judge however, has reasoned that since the
lands in question stood vested in the State Government on
the appointed date i.e., 1.3.1974 on which date the Land
Reforms Act was amended, prior to the notification dated 20.6
1974, it was only the tenants who could get the rights to
register themselves as occupants and the notification in
Annexure-A being issued after 1.3. 1974 had no effect on the
right of the tenants to get themselves registered as
occupants. Under the circumstances, the notification dated
20.6.1974 by which these lands were granted for the purpose
of offering prayers to the appellants would have no effect as
subsequent to 1.3.1974, the vested right of tenancy to seek
occupancy rights could not have been taken away by virtue of
the said notification. Under the circumstances, the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 972 in the case of
Sayyed Ali & others V/3. Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board,
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
Hyderabad and others has no application to the facts of the
present case. The learned single judge has further opined that
notification dated 20.6.1974 at Annexure-A pertains to land
bearing Sy. No.217 of Jevargi ‘B’ Village and not Belurgi
Village, and Sy. No. 140 of Gour (K) Village is not mentioned
in the said notification, but it is Sy.No.140 of Bhasga Village.
Therefore, the said notification is not relatable to the lands in
question.
8. It is further seen that the Tribunal on evidence and
facts before it has concluded that the names of respondent
Nos.8 and 9 has been entered in the revenue records from the
year 1963-64 the land in Sy.No.217 and even till date the
names appear in the revenue records and therefore, the
Tribunai’s order cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the
contention of the appellant that on account of notification
dated 20.6.1974, the lands in question vested with the
appellant cannot be accepted and in our view, the learned
singie judge was right in dismissing the writ petition for the
above reasons which in our view cannot be found fault with.
Hence, this writ appeal is also rejected at the stage of
admission itself.
14. Further, in the case of Karnataka State Board
of Wakf V/s The Deputy Commissioner, WP
No.204178/2018, dated 04.03.2026, this Court held
as under:
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
“ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to
quash the impugned order passed in Appeal No.
109/2016 dtd. 17/11/2017 on the file of the
karnataka appellate tribunal, bangalore vide at
Annexure-D.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent No.4 to make the
petitioner as one of the respondents before the
first respondent and thereafter first respondent
may be directed to dispose of the application
filed under Section 95 of the KLR Act after
affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner/respondents. vide at Annexure-B.
iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction, as
this hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the
above facts and circumstances of the case in
the interest of justice and equity along with
costs of this proceedings”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
property bearing Survey No.705 of Afzalpur village, is a
Wakf property, which is notified in the gazette notification at
Annexure-A, issued on 20.06.1974. On the strength of the
order passed by the Land Tribunal under the Provisions of
The Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977,
respondent No.4 has filed an application for conversion of
the said land from agricultural purpose to non agricultural
purpose. The said application has been allowed by the order
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.109/2016, vide Annexure-D which is impugned in the
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
petition. He submits that the notification at Annexure-A has
not been questioned by the respondent No.4 till date.
Therefore, the property in question belongs to the petitioner.
Under the circumstances the petitioner was a necessary
party before the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal was
therefore not justified in passing the impugned order.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.4, submits that once the Land Tribunal grants occupancy
rights of agricultural properties in favour of the claimant
under the Provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams
Abolition Act, 1977, it is deemed that the land is vested with
the State Government. The petitioner is well aware of the
order passed by the Land Tribunal, but it has not questioned
the same till date. The attempt by the petitioner to change
the revenue entries of the land in question had failed earlier.
He has referred to an order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in WP No.84072/2010 and 84193-197/2010. He
accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
4. Material on record would go to show that
respondent No.4 herein had filed an application under the
provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act,
1977 for grant of the occupancy right of the land in question
and considering the same, the Land Tribunal on 07.12.1981
had granted occupancy rights of the land in question in
favour of the claimant. It appears that subsequently the
revenue records of the land in question were also transferred
in the name of the claimant. Based on the gazette
notification dated 20.06.1974, the revenue records of the
land in question was directed to be entered in the name of
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
the petitioner herein and the said action was questioned by
the respondent No.4 herein before the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in WP No.84072/2010 and 84193-197/2010. In
paragraph No.5 of the said order, it is observed as under:
“5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri
A. Vijaykumar fairly concedes that rightly or
wrongly, there is an order of occupancy rights
being granted in favour of the family members of
the petitioner. As long as these occupancy rights
granted by the Land Tribunal by order dated
07.12.1981 stands, there cannot be disturbance
either to the entries in the RTC or the possession
of the property by the concerned persons
including the present petitioners. On the
application by the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar
concerned ought to have held an enquiry Even
after giving opportunity to the petitioners. giving
opportunity to the petitioners, he has to consider
the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the
above said lands by the order of the Tribunal
dated 07.12.1981 which is glaring at the 1st
respondent.
In that view of the matter, the writ
petitions are allowed quashing the letter dated
24.02.2010 directing the concerned authorities to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law in
the light of the above observations.”
5. Under similar circumstances, the Waqf board
had approached this Court in WP No.13733/2007, which was
disposed of on 07.09.2007. In paragraph No.4 of the said
order reads as under:
“4. The tenanted properties in question stood
vested in the State Government on 1.3.1974
(appointed day) on which date the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act was amended substantially. The
said aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Thus,
it is clear that even prior to the notification
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026HC-KAR
Annexure-A dated 20th June, 1974, the
properties stood vested in the State Government
in pursuance to the provisions of Section 44 of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. As the
properties were vested in the State in pursuance
to the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, the tenants would get right to get themselves
registered occupants. Consequently, the father of
respondents 8, 9 and 10 acquired right fog grant
of occupancy rights. Thus, the notification
Annexure-A cannot be of of help to the petitioner
inasmuch issued after 1.3.1974.
Added to it, father of respondents
aforementioned, the father of respondents 8 and
9 filed application over the land bearing
Sy.No.217 of Balurgi village and respondent
No.10 applied for the land bearing Sy.No.140 of
Gour(K) village. The Tribunal by the impugned
order, granted occupancy rights over aforesaid
lands in favour of respondents 8, 9 and 10. (In
the meanwhile, father of respondents 8 and 9
expired and therefore the Tribunal granted
occupancy rights in favour of respondents 8 and
9.) Whereas the notification Annexure-A dated
20th June, 1974 pertains to the land bearing
Sy.No.217 of Javargi ‘B’ village and not Belurgi
village. So also, the notification Annexure-A does
not relate to Sy.No.140 of Gour(k) village but the
Sy.No.140 same pertains to Sy.No.140 of Bhasga
village. Thus, notification Annexure-A does not
relate to the the properties in question. Hence,
the argument advanced on behalf of the
petitioners relying on Annexure-A cannot be
sustained.”
6. The Order passed in WP No.13733/2007 was
confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA
No.117/2008, which was disposed of on 25.11.2008.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee v.
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 2023 Live law
(SC) 454 in paragraph No.35 has held as under:
“35. It may be noted that Wakf Board is a
statutory authority under the Wakf Act.
Therefore, the official Gazette is bound to carry
any notification at the instance of the Waks Board
but nonetheless, the State Government is not
bound by such a publication of the notification
published in the official Gazette merely for the
reason that it has been so published. In State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P. State Wakf Board
and Ors., this Court consisting of one of us (V.
Ramasubramanian, J. as a Member) held that the
publication of a notification in the official Gazette
has a presumption of knowledge to the general
public just like an advertisement published in the
newspaper but such a notification published at the
instance of the Wakf Board in the State Gazette is
not binding upon the State Government. It means
that the notification, if any, published in the
official Gazette at the behest of the Wakf Act
giving the lists of the wakfs is not a conclusive
proof that a particular property is a wakf property
especially, when no procedure as prescribed
under Section 4 of the Wakf Act has been
followed in issuing the same.”
8. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion
that contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that since
the land in question was notified under the gazette
notification vide Annexure-A, he was a necessary party
before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and its challenge to
the order impugned passed by the KAT in Appeal
No.109/2016, allowing the application filed by the
respondent No.4/claimant seeking conversion of the land in
question from agriculture purpose to non agriculture purpose
is liable to be rejected. Therefore, I do not find any good
ground to entertain this petition.
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.”
15. As can be seen from the principles laid down in
the aforesaid judgments, the reason assigned by the
respondent that the subject land is Wakf/Inam land and
therefore, cannot be converted for non-agricultural
purposes has no nexus or connection with the request of
the petitioner for the grant of conversion of the subject
land for non-agricultural purposes. It is also pertinent to
note that the provisions of Section 95 of the KLR Act do
not contemplate or empower or authorise the respondent
to deny/refuse/decline conversion of lands for non-
agricultural purposes in favour of the kathedar on the
ground that the land in question was a Wakf/Inam land.
16. Under these circumstances, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned endorsement issued
by the respondent is not only without jurisdiction or
authority of law, but also contrary to the provisions
contained in Section 95 of the KLR Act and the principles
– 27 –
NC: 2026:KHC-K:5246
WP No. 201917 of 2026
HC-KAR
laid down in the aforesaid judgments warranting
interference by this Court in the present petition.
17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is hereby allowed and the impugned
endorsement dated 11.05.2025 at Annexure-J is
hereby quashed.
The respondent is directed to grant
conversion of the subject land bearing Sy.No.634/9
measuring 1 acre 29 guntas is situated at Afzalpur,
Kalaburagi District for non agricultural purposes
and issue conversion certificate by
collecting/receiving necessary conversion fee from
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SMP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
CT:SI
