- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8821 WP No. 6008 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6008 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O GUDAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KOLAKKE, 34, NEKKIALADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR - D.K. - 574 325. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. - 574 201. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. - 574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2025 IN R.E.V.S.R NO.119/2024-25 PASSED BY R-1 TO THE EXTENT OF NOT GRANTING AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY IN NCRSR NO.02/2025-26 DATED Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8821 WP No. 6008 of 2025 17.02.2025 PASSED BY R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE - A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF STAY AS PER ANNEXURE - E 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 petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of the interim order by respondent No.1 - the Assistant Commissioner before whom an appeal is preferred by the petitioner. 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), upon receiving instructions, submits that the petitioner, while asserting rights over the Kumki land, is in fact obstructing the adjoining landowners from accessing and passing through the said land. It is contended that under the guise of exercising Kumki rights, the petitioner is creating hindrances for the neighboring property owners, thereby leading to disputes regarding the rightful usage of the land. 3. The petitioner, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.2, the Tahsildar, who has taken - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8821 WP No. 6008 of 2025 steps to construct a road by clearing the existing trees on the said Kumki land. The petitioner alleges that such action is in violation of their rights and has challenged the same by filing an appeal before respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner asserts that the proposed felling of trees and the laying of the road would cause irreparable harm to the land and its intended use, warranting immediate intervention by the appropriate authority. 4. Learned AGA has further brought to the attention of this Court that the appeal filed by the petitioner is currently pending adjudication and is scheduled to be heard on 05.03.2025. In light of this, the present writ petition seeking interference at this stage may not be maintainable, particularly when the matter is already under due consideration by the competent authority. 5. In view of the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot directly approach the writ court solely on the ground that their application seeking a stay has not been considered. The proper course of action available to the petitioner is to insist that the appellate authority respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8821 WP No. 6008 of 2025 No.1, the Assistant Commissioner expeditiously decide on the pending application for a stay. Accordingly, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek urgent orders from respondent No.1 regarding the stay application, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Respondent No.1 - the Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner at the earliest. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10