An appellate authority’s discretionary refusal to conduct a spot inspection warrants no writ interference.

The petitioner challenged the Joint Director of Land Records’ order dated 19 September 2026, which rejected his application under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking, among other reliefs, a joint spot inspection

The petitioner had appealed to the Joint Director against an order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, and that appeal remained pending

He sought to quash the rejection of his inspection application through a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Joint Director’s rejection of the petitioner’s request for a joint spot inspection warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the High Court should interfere while the petitioner’s appeal before the Joint Director remained pending

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

The Court treated the decision whether to conduct a spot inspection as a matter within the Joint Director’s discretion and declined to interfere with that decision in the circumstances of the pending appeal

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader test for exercising that discretion.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s appeal against the Deputy Director’s order was before the Joint Director, who had rejected the request for a spot inspection while exercising discretion

Considering the appeal was still pending, the Court found the Joint Director’s decision justified and concluded that no ground for writ interference had been shown