Dismissed¶61

Munivenkata Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/19415/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition dismissed; Section 95 Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 land conversion order by Tahsildar K.G.F. Taluk challenged via certiorari; efficacious alternative remedy before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; writ interference refused; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 condonation of period spent before High Court; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Annexures A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2, C3; Kolar district; KGF taluk; Justice E.S. Indiresh; order dated 08-07-2026; NC: 2026:KHC:34416.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner left to seek redressal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, with the period spent before this Court to be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if an appeal is filed. ¶61

Munivenkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the conversion orders passed by Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, K.G.F. Taluk) under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexures-A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2 and C3) should be entertained by the High Court, or whether the petitioner should be directed to the appellate remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶44

Court's answer

Since the impugned order is one of conversion of the subject land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

No interference is called for in the writ petition, as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the competent authority (the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal).

¶56

Key takeaways

In the event the petitioner files an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the period spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be condoned by the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No.19415 of 2026 (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J.), order dated 08.07.2026: Munivenkata Reddy sought certiorari to quash conversion orders passed by the Tahsildar, K.G.F. Taluk (Respondent No.4) under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, annexed as Annexures-A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2 and C3. The Court held that an order of conversion under Section 95 of the Act is amenable to appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal; since the petitioner there enjoys an efficacious remedy, no writ interference was called for. The writ petition was dismissed, with the further direction that, if an appeal is filed, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal shall condone the period spent before the High Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 19415 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUNIVENKATA REDDY S/O LATE GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT JODI KRISHNARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TAHSILDAR, K.G.F TALUK,

¶21

KOLAR DISTRICT-563115.

¶22

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SRINIVASA SANDRA VILLAGE, SRINIVAS SANDRA PANCHAYATH, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563121.

¶23

THRILOK CHANDRA, S/O LATE SUGANATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT JODI KRISHNARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶24

T.VENKATESH S/O M.THIMMARAYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NARALUR VILLAGE AND POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560064.

¶25

VENKATARATHNAMMA D/O LATE PAPI REDDY, W/O GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT SAKALA KUPPAM GRAMA, PALLIKUPPAM POST, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH-517401.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

9. SUNANDAMMA

¶29

D/O LATE PAPI REDDY, W/O SHIVARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KAMBAMPALLI GRAMA, PARANDAHALLI POST, BANGARPET TALUK, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶30

10. VANAJAMMA

¶31

D/O LATE PAPI REDDY, W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNAYANAPALLI, BANDARALA PALLI POST, RAMAKUPPAM MANDALAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-517401.

¶32

11. SUDAKAR REDDY

¶33

S/O LATE PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT JODI KRISHNARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶34

12. SHOBA

¶35

D/OF LATE PAPI REDDY, W/O MANJUNATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT THAYALURU GRAMA AND POST, MULBGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

13. GEETHA

¶39

D/O LATE PAPI REDDY, W/O MUNIVENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MADIVALA GRAMA, KYSAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶40

14. LAKSHMAMMA

¶41

W/O LATE PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT JODI KRISHNARAJAPURAM VILLAGE, KYSAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, PRESENTLY KGF TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶44

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE CONVERSION ORDER BEARING NO.ALN/SR/67/15-16, NO.ALN/SR/29/2015-16, NO.ALN/SR/66/15-16 AND NOL.ALN/SR/65/2015-16 DATED-22/06/2016 AND 07/09/2016 AND MR.NO.H13/2014-15 DATED-19/6/15 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RRTDISCR-81, MR.NO.H4/2014-15 DATED-15/12/2014 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.BPT-1-07491-2014-15, MR.NO.H10/2015-16 DATED-29/12/2015 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RA-146/15-16 AND MR.NO.H1/2015-16 DATED-10/07/2015 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RA-146/2015-16 VIDE 'ANNEXURE- A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2 AND C3' RESPECTIVELY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVELY AND ETC.,

¶45

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶52

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing

¶53

the conversion order impugned at Annexures-A, A1, A2, B, C, C1, C2 and C3, passed by respondent No.4.

¶54

Taking into consideration the impugned order challenged by the petitioner is an order of conversion in respect of the subject land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is open for the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

¶55

Accordingly, I am of the view that, no

¶56

interference is called for in this writ petition, as the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy before the competent authority. In the event, if such an appeal is

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:34416 WP No. 19415 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

filed by the petitioner, the period spent by the petitioner before this Court shall be condoned by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶61

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶62

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶63

MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Munivenkata Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munivenkata Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Zeenath Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Sandeepani Educational Society Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kempahanumakka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Surapaneni Hanumantha Krishna Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna K N Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Jayaram M S Vs State of Karnataka