- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563552026 NC: 2026:KHC:47816-DB WA No. 1947 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1947 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES (HOUSING AND INDRASTRUCTURES) INDIA PVT. LTD. A-103, A BLOCK KRISHNA SHELTON APARTMENTS BAGALUR CROSS MAIN ROAD VINAYAKA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 063 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI R. ANIL KUMAR …APPELLANT (BY MS. KRISHNIKA VISHNAV, ADVCOCATE FOR SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJU B-908, KRISHNA SHELTON APARTMENT BAGALUR CROSS MAIN ROAD VINAYAKA NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 063 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563552026 NC: 2026:KHC:47816-DB WA No. 1947 of 2026 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 1 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA,K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN GROUND FLOOR K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, PRAYING TO THE ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2026 IN W.P.No.20069/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563552026 NC: 2026:KHC:47816-DB WA No. 1947 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20069/2021 (GM-RES). 2. The said writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, inter alia, praying that a direction be issued to the Deputy Commissioner and the Special Tahsildar (respondents No.3 and 4) for complying with the order cum directions dated 04.11.2020 issued by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bengaluru [KRERA]. 3. Although the writ petitioner refers to it as an order, it is a recovery certificate issued by the KRERA and respondents No.3 and 4 are statutorily bound to implement the said recovery certificate. 4. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge in the given context - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563552026 NC: 2026:KHC:47816-DB WA No. 1947 of 2026 observed that the coercive action initiated by respondent No.3 (Special Deputy Commissioner) as against the appellant could be interfered with only if the amount under the recovery certificate was deposited. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had sought time to take instructions to deposit the entire amount. 5. The learned counsel appearing to the appellant also submitted that the quantification of the amount is in dispute and in this regard the learned Single Judge had clarified that any issue regarding quantification, would be adjudicated on the appellant making the deposit. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order forecloses the right of the appellant to challenge the quantification under the guise of initiating recovery proceedings. The authorities are also taking coercive steps against the properties of the wife of the appellant, which is impermissible. 7. Undisputedly, the role of respondents No.3 and 4 is confined to implementing the recovery certificate, to recover the amount as certified as arrears of land revenue. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010563552026 NC: 2026:KHC:47816-DB WA No. 1947 of 2026 8. The directions for the appellant to deposit the amount is only as a condition for interfering with the steps being taken by respondents No.3 and 4 for implementing the recovery certificate. 9. Plainly, if the appellant does not deposit the amount, it would be necessary for respondents No.3 and 4, to enforce the recovery certificate in accordance with law. 10. In view of the aforesaid clarification, no interference in the impugned order is warranted. 11. We, however, clarify that the impugned order would not preclude the appellant from availing its remedies in accordance with law. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7