Karnataka High Court
WA/1947/2026 of KRISHNA ENTERPRISES Vs PRADEEP KUMAR RAJU on 2 September 2026
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:
HC-KAR
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
HC-KAR
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:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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
HC-KAR
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.
HC-KAR
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