IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2025 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

2. N JAYARAM REDDY, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT SURYAKANTHI ROAD, K.V LAYOUT, K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. 3. N ASHOK REDDY, Digitally S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, signed by AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

NANDINI R Location:

4. N SURESH REDDY, HIGH COURT OF S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/A: MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036.

4. MUNIREDDY, S/O. LATE NADUPANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036.

5. SHAKUNTALAMMA, D/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY, W/O. JAYASHEEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A: KITHAGANOOR VILLAGE, BEDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3;

SRI .G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE W.P. No. 18360/2021 DATED 24.02.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT PETITION No. 18360/2021, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 4 & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

1. This is an intra court appeal assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18360 of 2021 dated 24.02.2025.

2. Being aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition, respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the said petition have approached this Court in the present appeal, contending that the learned Single Judge could not have dealt with the matter on the merits when the grievance of the writ petitioner was only in respect of the dismissal of the petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 535 of 2016 dated 30.03.2021 on the question of limitation.

3. The factual background is that, the respondent No. 4-Munireddy [writ petitioner] was owning 01 acre in Survey No. 55. Another portion in the said Survey No.55 measuring 2 acres was owned by the appellants herein. The appellants got the land measuring 02 acres converted into non- agriculture by submitting an application to the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.4-Munireddy contended that the boundaries shown by the appellants were not correct and therefore, he approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ['Appellate Tribunal' for short] against the conversion of the 02 acres of land. The Appellate Tribunal found that his appeal is beyond the period of limitation and therefore, it dismissed the petition without going into the merits of the contentions. Therefore, respondent No.4, Munireddy filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Single Judge observed that writ petitioner/respondent No.4-Munireddy had also approached the Civil Court seeking relief of injunction in OS No. 1581 of 2015. In the said suit, he had pleaded that he came to know about the conversion of 02 acres of land by the appellants only on 25.01.2016, when written statement was filed by the appellants herein. Therefore, the observation of the Appellate Tribunal that the petition was hit by the law of limitation is incorrect and as such, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal was set at naught