IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18360 OF 2021 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

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

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Digitally VIDHANA SOUDHA ,BANGALORE - 560 001.

signed by KAVYA R

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Location: High BANGALORE DISTRICT, Court of Karnataka BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 036.

4. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 5. N JAYARAM REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BOTH R4 AND R5 ADDRESS R/AT NO. SURYAKANTHI ROAD K V LAYOUT, K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036.

6. N ASHOK REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 7. N SURESH REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND 7 ARE ALL R/AT MARAGONDANAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 036.

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

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7;

VIDE ORDER DATED 23.06.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPEAL NO.535/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘KAT’) in appeal No.535/2016, dated 30.03.2021. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of conversion obtained by respondents No.4 to 8, which is dated 28.01.2013.

2. The petitioner, who owns Sy.No.55, measuring one acre, is aggrieved by the conversion order obtained by private respondents No.4 to 8. The petitioner contends that the respondents misrepresented facts to the Deputy Commissioner and falsely cited a panchayat road that exists exclusively on the petitioner’s property to secure the conversion order. Challenging this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Appeal No.535/2016. However, the KAT dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, holding that the petitioner had approached the tribunal after a delay of three years, two months, and twenty-six days. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in University of Delhi vs. Union of India and Others (2019 SCC Online SC 1634), the KAT found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, the tribunal ruled that the absence of objections from the respondents did not entitle the petitioner to any benefit. As a result, without examining the merits of the case, the KAT dismissed the appeal under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioner now challenges this order.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for private respondents No.4 to 8. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for private respondents No. 4 to 8 contends that the petitioner has already approached the civil court, where a suit seeking relief of injunction and mandatory injunction is pending adjudication. He further submits that the issue at hand is directly addressed in O.S.

No. 1581/2015.

5. While these arguments may appear persuasive, the fundamental question concerning the validity of the conversion order requires independent examination by this Court. The mere pendency of a suit for injunction, w