- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH 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 VIDHANA SOUDHA ,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 - 560 036. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 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) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 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, whether prohibitory or mandatory, does not preclude this Court from scrutinizing the legality of the conversion order. 6. With regard to the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in non-suiting the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation, this Court finds it necessary to take cognizance of the written statement filed by the private respondents in O.S. No. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 1581/2015. It is evident that the said written statement, filed in April 2016, was the first instance where the private respondents disclosed the fact that they had obtained a conversion order for their land. Until this disclosure, the petitioner had no knowledge of the conversion order secured by the private respondents. 7. The petitioner, in the present case, is not questioning the respondents’ right to obtain a conversion order per se but is specifically aggrieved by the manner in which the private respondents have secured the conversion. The petitioner contends that the conversion order was obtained by misrepresenting the existence of an east-west road abutting their property, which is a crucial factual dispute requiring judicial scrutiny. Given that the petitioner became aware of the conversion order only in April 2016, the question of delay and laches should have been examined in light of this disclosure rather than being mechanically dismissing on technical grounds. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 8. The KAT, while adjudicating the matter, was expected to exercise its discretion judiciously, particularly considering that the dispute pertains to immovable property rights, which cannot be summarily disposed of through a rigid and overly technical application of limitation law. Instead of addressing the substantive legal and factual issues involved, the KAT failed to appreciate the circumstances under which the petitioner learnt about the conversion order. By dismissing the case purely on limitation grounds without delving into the merits, the KAT effectively denied the petitioner an opportunity for a fair adjudication of his grievance. 9. While considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, judicial forums are required to take a pragmatic and equitable approach rather than adopting an excessively technical stance. The KAT, in the present case, has failed to do so. It neither examined the merits of the dispute nor acknowledged the fact that the petitioner acted promptly upon discovering the conversion order. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 10. This oversight has resulted in a clear miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the finding recorded by the KAT in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not only erroneous but also perverse, as it disregards the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Such a finding warrants interference by this Court to ensure that the dispute is adjudicated on its merits rather than being dismissed on a mere procedural technicality.Considering the admitted documents, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the challenge against the conversion order. 11. This Court finds it necessary to scrutinize the partition deed executed among private respondents No. 4 to 8, as it provides critical insight into the factual matrix of the dispute. In the said partition deed, the private respondents have explicitly acknowledged the presence of a road and also recognized that the petitioner’s property is situated to the north of their land. Significantly, the conversion order obtained by the private respondents - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 similarly acknowledges the existence of a road along the northern boundary of their property. The impugned conversion order, as evidenced in Annexure-G, also indicates the presence of a road towards the north. However, a glaring inconsistency emerges when comparing the northern boundary description in the conversion order with the details recorded in the partition deed. In the conversion order, the private respondents assert that the northern boundary consists of land bearing Sy. No. 61 and a road. This road was cited as the justification for obtaining the conversion order, which now raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy and legitimacy of the conversion itself. The contradiction in the description of the northern boundary is a material inconsistency that requires judicial scrutiny. 12. While private respondents No. 4 to 8 are entitled to seek conversion of their land, such conversion must be secured in accordance with the law and established regulatory parameters. One of the key - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 prerequisites for obtaining a conversion order is the presence of a road abutting the property. The petitioner does not dispute the title of private respondents No. 4 to 8 over their land and is not questioning their ownership rights. However, the grievance of the petitioner is specific: the private respondents have secured the conversion order by citing an east-west road as if it directly abuts their property, when, according to the petitioner, no such road exists adjacent to their land. 13. The petitioner has relied on a private sketch to substantiate his claim, asserting that the Panchayath road in question actually runs through his own property, effectively dividing it into two portions, each measuring 17 guntas. The petitioner contends that, to the south of this road, he continues to own another 17 guntas of land, and only beyond this lies the land owned by private respondents No. 4 to 8. Based on this assertion, the petitioner argues that the private respondents could not have legally obtained the conversion order by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 misrepresenting the location of the east-west road. If the road indeed runs through the petitioner’s property and not adjacent to the private respondents' land, then the conversion order was obtained based on incorrect or misleading information, thereby raising serious legal concerns. 14. The crux of the dispute, therefore, revolves around a key factual issue: whether the 24-foot-wide east- west road runs exclusively through the petitioner’s land, dividing it into two parts, or whether it is adjacent to the land owned by private respondents No. 4 to 8. This issue is a disputed question of fact that necessitates proper examination. The KAT, while adjudicating the matter, ought to have undertaken a detailed inquiry into the merits of the case instead of dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay. If necessary, the KAT could have even ordered a local inspection to ascertain the precise location of the road and verify the claims of both parties before ruling on the validity of the conversion order. The - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 KAT’s failure to address this crucial factual dispute, coupled with its summary dismissal of the appeal based on a technical ground, renders its order legally unsustainable. Given the significance of this factual determination, this Court finds that the matter requires reconsideration by the KAT. Accordingly, the case is remitted to the KAT for fresh adjudication on its merits. All contentions of the parties are left open for examination by the KAT. The core issue to be decided by the KAT is whether the 24-foot-wide east- west road in question is located within the petitioner’s land, dividing it into two parts, or whether it lies adjacent to the private respondents’ property. This fundamental aspect necessitates a thorough and objective evaluation. 15. Furthermore, the KAT must secure the original records to ascertain whether the Deputy Commissioner had duly notified the adjoining owners when passing the conversion order. If such notification was not issued, the KAT must assess the procedural infractions and their legal consequences. Given the importance of these - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 determinations, this Court finds that the matter warrants reconsideration 16. This Court is also called upon to examine the application filed in I.A. No. 1/2025, seeking a temporary injunction. Learned counsel for private respondents No. 4 to 8 has vehemently contended that this Court should not entertain the prayer for injunction, particularly because a competent civil court has already adjudicated the issue and refused an injunction in O.S. No. 1581/2015. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the private respondents. The central issue at hand is whether the private respondents were legally entitled to obtain the conversion order by citing the east-west road as their northern boundary. Unless they can substantiate their claim that the land abuts the east-west road, they cannot proceed with construction activities or create third-party rights. The mere fact that the civil court refused an injunction does not automatically grant the private respondents the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 authority to alter the nature of the property or continue with developmental activities, especially when the validity of the conversion order itself is under judicial scrutiny. 17. Until the KAT adjudicates upon the core issue regarding the validity of the conversion order, private respondents No. 4 to 8 cannot, dehors the civil court’s rejection of an injunction, proceed with construction or create third-party rights. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds before the KAT and the conversion order is invalidated, any constructions made in the interim would significantly complicate the situation and render it difficult for the petitioner to enjoy the benefits of the KAT’s ruling. Thus, this Court finds that equity tilts in favor of the petitioner at this juncture. In light of the pending adjudication before the KAT, the parties are directed to maintain status quo concerning the subject property until the appeal is disposed of by the KAT. 18. The photographs produced by private respondents No. 4 to 8 indicate that certain construction - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 activities have already been undertaken on the disputed property. While these constructions shall remain protected pending the disposal of the appeal before the KAT, the private respondents are explicitly restrained from undertaking any further construction activities. The private respondents shall also refrain from creating third-party rights over the property until the validity of the conversion order is conclusively determined by the KAT. Any further alteration of the property during the pendency of the proceedings would not only prejudice the petitioner but also complicate the adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the private respondents are directed to maintain the status quo and desist from any further developments on the land until the matter is finally decided by the KAT. For the forgoing reasons,this court passes the following ; ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 ii. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. iii. The matter is remitted back to the KAT for fresh consideration on its merits. iv. The KAT is directed to conduct a spot inspection or secure survey report of the subject property before adjudicating upon the validity of the conversion order. The determination of the conversion order’s legality shall depend on the actual location of the east-west road in relation to the properties of the petitioner and private respondents No. 4 to 8. v. The Tribunal must either conduct a local inspection or obtain a survey report from the jurisdictional ADLR to determine the exact location of the east-west road. If the inspection or survey establishes that the road serves as a - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 boundary dividing the properties of both the petitioner and the private respondents, Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders. vi. However, if the inspection reveals that the east-west road does not abut the property of private respondents No. 4 to 8, the KAT shall pass appropriate orders by reassessing the validity of the conversion order. vii. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear before the KAT on 18.03.2025, without awaiting any further notice. viii. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal by the KAT, both parties are directed to maintain the status quo as of today, and no further construction or creation of third-party rights shall be undertaken. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8203 WP No. 18360 of 2021 xi. The KAT shall adjudicate the matter independently, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the course of this order. x. All contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration before the KAT. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK