Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 678 (KAR)

Hinduja Estate Developers v. State of Karnataka

2025-07-01

E.S.INDIRESH

body2025
ORDER : 1. 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 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 private respondents herein has made an application seeking conversion of the land and the same has been accorded by the respondent -authorities. 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 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 1/5 th 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 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. 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 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 1/5 th 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 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: 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 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.