- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2020 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: GURUMURTHY H P S/O. LATE. PUTTASWAMY SHETTY, R/AT HANDITAVAHALLI VILLAGE, RAVANDOORU HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 108. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UN AUTHORISED CULTIVATION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA MYSORE DISTRICT 571 108. 3. THE THASILDAR PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE 571 108. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE 571 108. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020 5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANDITAVAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, HANDITAVAHALLI, RAVANDOOR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE 571 108 .…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE MEMORANDUM DTD 13.05.2019 MADE BY THE R-4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE WHEREIN DIRECTED THE R-4-PDO, TO EVICT THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN SY.NO.2 OF HANDITHAVALLI VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK VIDE ANNX- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for quashing of Annexure-A which is an order dated 13.05.2019 addressed to the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO). 2. By this order, the PDO has been directed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat to conduct a spot inspection and if he finds that there is any - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020 encroachment, he should take appropriate steps to evict the unauthorized occupants. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application for grant of the unauthorisedly occupied land under Annexure-B and even before the said application was considered, the impugned order has been passed directing his eviction. 4. It is submitted that if that is permitted, the petitioner’s application seeking for grant of the unauthorisedly occupied land would be frustrated. 5. In my view, since Annexure-B indicates that an application for regularization of the unauthorized land has been made on 11.02.2019 i.e., before the impugned order was passed on 13.05.2019, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Until such a decision is taken, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020 status quo as it exists today shall be maintained. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56