- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16441 WP No. 6509 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6509 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ASHOK KUMAR H.S. AGE 70 YEARS S/O LATE MAKAM SURYA NARAYANA SETTY RESIDING AT NO.1391, JANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, HUNUSUR TOWN, HUNUSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ZONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK BMTC, TTMC, K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. 2. THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY (PMLA), ROOM NO.26, 4TH FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001 BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE 3. MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MYSURU-570001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16441 WP No. 6509 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER NO.03/2026 (IN ECIR NO. ECIR/BGZO/25/2024) DATED 21.01.2026 UNDER SECTION 5(1) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -A AND QUASH THE PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT ORDER NO.03/2026 (IN ECIR NO. ECIR/BGZO/25/2024) DATED 21.01.2026 UNDER SECTION 5(1) OF PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ONLY AS REGARDS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question a provisional attachment order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as 'PMLA') in Case No.3/2026 (ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/25/2024). 2. (i) Petitioner contends that he had purchased a site formed in Sy.No.157/1 situated at Hinakal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It is contended that Mysore Urban - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16441 WP No. 6509 of 2026 Development Authority (MUDA) without issuing any notification proposing to acquire the land in Sy.No.157/1, had acquired it. Later, the owner of the land in Sy.No.157/1 had entered into a settlement with MUDA to receive 50% of the developed sites in the aforesaid land. The petitioner submits that a relinquishment deed was executed on 21.02.2023 in terms of which, 26,838 sq. ft. was agreed to be granted to the petitioner's vendor. However, in terms of an endorsement dated 20.03.2023 issued by MUDA, it was stated that further steps cannot be taken to confer title on the vendor of the petitioner in respect of 26,838 sq. ft. in view of a notification issued on 21.02.2023. (ii) The petitioners' vendor questioned the correctness of the said notification in W.P.No.7102/2023. The said writ petition was allowed and it was held that the Circular dated 14.03.2023 issued by the State Government cannot bar a compromise in O.S.No.348/2020. Accordingly, the endorsement issued by MUDA was set aside. Out of the sites that were identified by MUDA, the owner conveyed one of the sites to the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 19.07.2023. It is contended that this land was mired in a litigation under the provisions of the PMLA and that several proceedings were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16441 WP No. 6509 of 2026 pending before several authorities and later, only the site allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner was provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. (iii) The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the said order of provisional attachment is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has lawfully purchased the site from his vendor and that as on the date of the purchase, there were no proceedings pending and hence, the property in question cannot be provisionally attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner cannot be exposed to a long drawn litigation as the property purchased by him is not out of the proceeds of crime. 4. A perusal of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's property shows that it is under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, which is provisional in nature. The right to challenge the order of attachment would arise only after an order is passed under Section 8 of the PMLA. Therefore, this petition is too premature and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to set at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16441 WP No. 6509 of 2026 nought the proceedings for provisional attachment of the property. 5. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order that may be passed by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3