- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13944 WP No. 9863 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 9863 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S THE HAMLET A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.11, KEMWELL HOUSE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHAPURA- 560022. 2. SATTVA CITY PRIVATE LIMITED FORMALLY KNOWN AS NABS TECHPARK PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY ACT, 2013 HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, 3, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU-560042. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANMOHAN.P.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA, MINI- VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560064 3. MRS. MUNIYAMMA W/O. LATE. GUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT. MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13944 WP No. 9863 of 2025 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562157. 4. MR. ESHWARAPPA S/O. LATE. GUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT. MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562157. 5. MR. VISHNU SHANKAR SHUKLA S/O. HAZARILAL SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT SY. NOS. NO. 67, 68, 44/1 AND 44/2, GREEN ACRES, BELLARY MAIN ROAD, DODDAJALA, BENGALURU-562157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI.GANGAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 TO 5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED. 21.03.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -II IN APPEAL NO. 43/2025 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-AD), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the grant of interim order in an appeal filed by respondent No.5 under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13944 WP No. 9863 of 2025 2. Respondent No.5 had filed an appeal challenging an order of conversion which was passed on 05.09.1996. In other words, an appeal was filed in the year 2025 challenging an order conversion passed in the year 1996 i.e., after a period of nearly 29 years. The Tribunal has, by the impugned order, granted the appellant a stay of the order of conversion granted in 1996. 3. In my view, the Tribunal could not have granted an order of stay of an order of conversion, which had been passed nearly 29 years ago. 4. It is to be kept in mind that an order of stay is granted in regard to an order which is executable. However, if an order which merely converts the land, there is no executable order to be stayed. Further, in respect of a land which has stood converted for more than 29 years, there was absolutely no justification for the Tribunal to grant an interim order of stay of the conversion. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13944 WP No. 9863 of 2025 5. In my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. The Tribunal shall, however, decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible on its merits and pass an appropriate order. 7. It is needless to state that the Tribunal shall also take into consideration the question of delay in filing the appeal before considering the appeal on merits. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2