- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 11257 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAROJA G V W/O BHEEMA RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) R/AT NO. 133, 9TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU- 560018 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER G K CHAITRA W/O DILIP KUMAR K …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 560 009 3. SMT. RADHAMMA G.M W/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO. 159, GUNJUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560087 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. PRADEEP NAIK.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 3.04.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKAS APPELLANT TRIBUNAL IN RA NO. 10/2025. (ANNEXURE-A), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. It is not in dispute that the husband of the 3rd respondent (Prakash) had executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of petitioner's father (Venkatagiriyappa) in respect of land bearing Sy.No.68/3 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas in Gunjur Village. Pursuant to the said Sale Deed, Venkatagiriyappa bequeathed the said property in favour of the petitioner, who is the daughter and on his death on 01.03.2002, the aforementioned property stood conveyed to the petitioner by virtue of bequest. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 2. In the year 2005, sons of GM Krishnappa who was the second vendor in the Sale Deed instituted a suit for partition in OS.No.1152/2005. In the said suit, the petitioner herein was arrayed as 5th defendant. In this suit, it was the case of sons of GM Krishnappa that the land in question was mortgaged and therefore, the alleged sale was not binding on them. They also contended in the said suit that the 3rd respondent herein had informed them that her husband had not sold the property to Venkatagiriypappa, but had only mortgaged the property for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and since he demanded interest, defendants 1 to 3 therein i.e., Muniyamma, GM Krishnappa and GM Prakash had sold the property to Venkatagiriyappa. This particular assertion in the plaint by itself goes to show that there was indeed a conveyance executed in favour of the father of the petitioner way back in the year 1996. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner and had sought for approval for change of land use of land in question for non-agricultural purpose and the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to issue the Official Memorandum permitting such use on 08.06.2020 and on the basis of this order of conversion, the petitioner also secured a commencement certificate for construction of ground and upper floor and it was stated that the civil work was completed. 4. It is contended that at this stage the 3rd respondent who was the 12th defendant in the suit approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking cancellation of order of conversion and since the Deputy Commissioner refused to withdraw the order of conversion, she approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") and the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has granted stay of the order of conversion. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 5. It is the case of the petitioner that having regard to the fact that there is admittedly Sale Deed of the year 1996 in favour of petitioner's father, the BBMP has also issued approval for construction and the construction is almost complete, the Tribunal could not have granted an order of stay of conversion. 6. It is also submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal basically attempts to stall the construction which is going on pursuant to the valid approval granted to the petitioner. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent being the 12th defendant in the suit could not have preferred an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to withdraw the order of conversion, inasmuch as her husband who had sold the property did not oppose the order of conversion, nor did he challenge the alienation made in favour of the father of the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner has admitted in her deposition that though the order of conversion was obtained in respect of one particular property, construction was being put up in the suit schedule property and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in granting the stay of order of conversion. It is also contended that if the order of conversion is not stayed, the nature and character of the property would be completely changed and this would seriously prejudice the 3rd respondent, both before the Tribunal as well as before the Trial Court. 8. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the 3rd respondent herein is the 12th defendant and she is not the plaintiff in the suit. In other words, she is not seeking a share in the suit for partition that has been filed by the sons of GM Krishnappa and nevertheless, even if said suit for partition is decreed and if it is held that the 3rd respondent would be entitled for a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 share, obviously, she would be entitled to a share in the property in the converted form and not in the agricultural state. 9. It is to be noticed here that since petitioner's father had purchased the property from the husband of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner would also be entitled to contend if the suit were to succeed that her title insofar as share of 3rd respondent's husband could not be denied. 10. In my view, having regard to the fact that the order of conversion was passed in the year 2020 and that the BBMP has also granted further permission to put up construction and the photographs produced by the 3rd respondent itself indicate that the civil work of ground and first floor has been completed, the order of staying the order of conversion cannot be sustained. Consequently, the same is set aside. 11. It is, however, made clear that any construction put up by the petitioner would be subject to the result of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15504 WP No. 11257 of 2025 the appeal pending before the Tribunal and also the suit in OS.No.1152/2005. The petitioner would not be entitled to claim equity in the event the suit is decreed and the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41