- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34352 WP No. 10879 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.10879 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR GIRJI, AGED 86 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/AT VIDYANAGAR 'B' BLOCK, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN, HAVERI-581 110. NOW R/AT NO.101, 5TH 'A' CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VIDHYAGIRI LAYOUT, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE AND SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, K.R. CIRCLE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34352 WP No. 10879 of 2026 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581 110. 4. THE TAHSILDAR HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLAH PANCHAYAT, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT, HAVERI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT -581 110. 7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAM PANCHAYAT, KULENUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT -581110. 8. SMT. REKHA W/O. BASAVARAJ BALEHOSUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER R/O NEAR ISHWAR GUDI ONI, HAVERI TALUK , HAVERI DISTRICT -581 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8; SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34352 WP No. 10879 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN REV. APPEAL NO.214/2024 (CH-1) ON I.A. NO.II VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.02.2026 on I.A.2 in Revenue Appeal No.214/2024 as per Annexure-B, on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, inter alia, sought for writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to re-inspect the land bearing Sy.No.73/1(old No.23/1A) with due notice to the petitioner and respondent No.8. 2. It is submitted by Sri. B. Raja Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the notice dated 08.10.2025 that though the report of the Revenue Officer - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34352 WP No. 10879 of 2026 would indicate that notice was served to the petitioner as to the spot inspection, however, learned counsel denied the same and submitted that survey has been made immediately on the next date i.e. on 09.10.2025 and the said aspect has been ignored by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order on I.A.2. 3. Per contra, Sri.Veerayya Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that the impugned order on I.A.2 has been passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by looking into the material on record, particularly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2), and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that only interim order is passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which is just and proper and the same does not call for interference by this Court. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order at Annexure-B is passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on I.A.2 filed by the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34352 WP No. 10879 of 2026 herein assailing the conversion order passed by the competent authority and therefore, I am of the view that, since the impugned order at Annexure-B passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is discretionary in nature and the matter is still pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, I am of the view that, the same cannot be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that it is open for the petitioner therein to urge all the grounds available under the Act at the time of final arguments before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9