- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42993 WP No. 21653 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 21653 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEAS WIFE MANJUNATHA HEGGADIHALLI VILLAGE THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S R SREEPRASAD., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING OF THE Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42993 WP No. 21653 of 2025 ORDER DTD 18.07.2023 PASSED IN LND(DO)CRR/74/2023-24 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE R-2, IN SO FAR AS THE ONLY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-'D' dated 18.07.2023. In terms of the order at Annexure-'D', the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the request to place the application before the Committee taking note of Rule 108-I(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, as the property is stated to be situated within the limits of urban area. 3. It is noticed that as against the order at Annexure-'D' passed by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, an appeal would lie to the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42993 WP No. 21653 of 2025 4. In light of the same, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order at Annexure-'D' dated 18.07.2023, if so advised as is permissible in law before the Tribunal in terms of Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. 5. Needless to state the respondent authorities are not to dispossess the petitioner for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Further, it is needless to state that the protection would remain in force only for such period within which the petitioner is to make out her legal grievances. In light of the observations made above, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR