- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4460-DB WP No. 1740 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 1740 OF 2026 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P. RANJAN RAO S/O LATE P.SRINIVAS RAO AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ADVOCATE "PREM NIVAS" BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD MANGALURU - 575 003, D.K. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M. SUDHAKAR PAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION LALBAGH MANGALURU - 575 003, D.K. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1) Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4460-DB WP No. 1740 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT - THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, NOT TO INSIST ON PRODUCTION OF CONVERSION ORDER AND SINGLE SITE APPROVAL, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUING E-KHATA IN RESPECT OF LANDS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent/Mangaluru City Corporation, not to insist on production of conversion order and single site approval as a condition precedent for issuing E-katha in respect of the lands situated within the jurisdiction of Mangaluru City Corporation area. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4460-DB WP No. 1740 of 2026 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is insisting for conversion order and single site approval for issuance of E-katha in respect of residential property situated in Mangaluru City Corporation area. It is the contention of the petitioner that such an order of conversion is not required having regard to various judgments passed by this Court. It is also contended that the single site approval for issuance of E-katha is also not necessary. 3. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Shrishail v. State of Karnataka and others : 2024(3) KLJ 342; a judgment of the full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Elfreeda Winnifred Dsouza v. Robin Dsouza : LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-990; as well as a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority v. The State of Karnataka and another: W.A.No.100124/2018(GM-RES)‒order dated 22.10.2018. 4. The judgment of the full Bench in the case of Elfreeda Winnifred Dsouza (supra), is rendered in the context of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 [KCF & SV Act] with regard to the valuation to be made for payment of ad- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4460-DB WP No. 1740 of 2026 valorem court fee as contemplated under Section 24A of the KCF & SV Act. 5. The co-ordinate Bench in the case of Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority (supra), has merely not interfered with an order of the learned Single Judge which directs consideration of the writ petitioner's representation. 6. The learned Single Judge in the case of Shrishail (supra), was considering a question as to whether the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 would apply to lands which fall within the territorial limits of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP]. 7. It is clear from the controversy that is sought to be raised, that no omnibus order could be passed in a public interest litigation. The orders passed are, by taking into consideration the factual matrix of a specific case. 8. In view of the above, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4460-DB WP No. 1740 of 2026 9. The question that is raised by the petitioner would be considered if the same is raised by an aggrieved party in appropriate proceedings. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10