Karnataka High Court
Hinduja Estate Developers vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
WP No. 3523 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3523 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
HINDUJA ESTATE DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 12th MILE
NEAR BAGLUR CROSS,
BELLARY ROAD, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE - 560 063.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
HEAD BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
SRI. MAHESH KALKAR
S/O MR. SADASHIVA BHATT
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND AND:
CHAYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
WP No. 3523 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O PATEL ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.
4. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
5. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
6. VENKATESH
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT CHENNAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. GANAPATHI BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
DR. SHRIDHAR HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31/10/2017 IN
APPEAL NO.1070/2015 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, FILED AS ANNEXURE-
A TO THIS WP, AND MAY FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ISSUE
SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER ON THE FACT AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
WP No. 3523 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition petitioner is assailing the order dated
31.10.2017 passed in Appeal No.1070/2015 on the file of
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KAT') (Annexure-A).
2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that
petitioner is claiming to be a partnership firm, had purchased
the land measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.28, at Chenanahalli
village, Bangalore North Taluk, as per the registered Sale Deed
dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B). It is further stated in the
writ petition that, after the sale made in favour of the
petitioner, the revenue records stands in the name of
petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the vendor
of the petitioner herein- father of the respondent Nos.3 to 6
(Anjanappa) has made an application to the competent
authority seeking conversion of land in question and
accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District by
order dated 11.07.1995, by Notification, ordered for conversion
of the land for non-agricultural purposes. It is also further
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
stated in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 herein has
filed a suit against his father and others in O.S.No.264/2010 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli and plaint in the
said suit is produced at Annexure-G. It is further stated in the
writ petition that, the private respondents herein, have
challenged the order of conversion made in favour of the father
of the respondents herein before the KAT in Appeal
No.1070/2015 and same was allowed though the petitioner
herein has not arrayed as a party in the said proceedings.
Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Heard Sri.K.Shrihari, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Smt. Savitramma, learned AGA for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri.Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri.Shridhar Hegde,
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
4. Sri.K.Shrihari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the registered
Sale Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B) and the Notification
dated 11.07.1995 (Annexure-F) wherein, the father of the
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
private respondents herein has made an application seeking
conversion of the land and the same has been accorded by the
respondent -authorities. He further invited the attention of the
Court to the relief sought for by the private respondents herein
in O.S.No.264/2010 on the file of Civil Court and argued that
the plaintiff therein has sought for 1/5th undivided share in the
suit schedule property and the schedule property in the Sale
Deed produced at Annexure-B is also subject land in the suit.
Hence, he contended that the private respondents herein,
ought to have arrayed the petitioner herein as a party before
the KAT and without doing so the impugned order passed by
the KAT requires to be set aside in this writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.3, opposed the petition and
submitted that, the land in question has been gifted by
Anjanappa (father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6) to the
respondent No.3 as per the registered Gift Deed dated
14.07.1983 and therefore, he reiterates the averments made in
the statement of objection and further contended that since the
Gift Deed has been executed much before the registered Sale
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B) and therefore, he
submitted that, the petitioners herein has to establish his right
in respect of subject land is concerned and therefore he sought
for dismissal of the writ petition. It is also further contended by
Sri. Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 that revenue records, continued in the name
of father of the private respondents herein despite sale deed
said to have been executed by said Anjanappa in favour of the
petitioner herein as per Annexure-B and accordingly, he invited
the attention of this Court to the proceedings held before the
Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North sub-Division,
Bangalore (Annexure-R6). Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
petition.
6. Smt. Savithramma, learned AGA has justified the
impugned order.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the points for consideration
in this writ petitioner is whether the petitioner herein has to be
heard by KAT while considering the claim made by the private
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
respondents herein challenging the order of conversion made in
respect of the subject land.
8. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that land in question
has been sold by the father of the private respondents herein-
Anjanappa in favour of the petitioner as per the registered Sale
Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B). Thereafter, the land has
been converted at the instance of the father of private
respondents herein as per Annexure-F dated 11.07.1995.
9. It is the contention of the private respondents that,
the land in question has been gifted by their father (Anjanappa)
in favour of the respondent No.3 as per Gift Deed dated
14.07.1983 (Annexure-R2) to the statement of objections. In
the background of these aspects, on the careful examination of
the averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.264/2010, wherein
the claim has been made by the plaintiff therein seeking 1/5th
undivided share in the suit properties including the subject land
which has been sold in favour of the petitioner herein. In that
view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
learned counsel appearing for private respondents that, the title
in respect of the subject land has to be established by the
parties to determine the rights, however, the private
respondents herein have challenged the order dated
11.07.1995 at Annexure-F, wherein the order of conversion has
been made in respect of the subject land and the said Appeal
has been allowed by the KAT. Strangely for the reasons best
known to private respondents, the father of the private
respondent herein has been served and remained absent and
not contested the matter and as such the KAT has passed the
impugned order at Annexure-A. In that view of the matter, I
find force in the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, as the petitioner herein had
purchased the land in question as per Annexure-B and at the
time of purchasing the land by the petitioner herein the land in
question, was converted on 11.07.1995. In that view of the
matter, the petitioner herein is a proper and necessary party in
the proceedings before the KAT in Appeal No.1070/2015 based
on the registered Sale Deed produced at Annexure -B dated
15.04.1996.
10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The order dated 31.10.2017 in Appeal
No.1070/2015 (Annexure-A) is hereby set aside
and the matter is remitted to the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the issue afresh
after hearing all parties concerned.
3. In order to avoid further delay in the
matter, since the parties are represented
through their learned counsel, parties are
directed to appear before Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal on 30.07.2025 at 11.00 a.m. and after
appearance of the parties, the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal is requested to dispose of the
Appeal in accordance with law.
4. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner herein is
required to file an impleading application before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and if such application
is filed on the date mentioned above, the Karnataka
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:23313
HC-KAR
Appellate Tribunal is directed to allow the same
and extend fair opportunity to both sides and
take decision in the matter in accordance with law.
5. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
