- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 2405 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHAVENDRA K S/O KRISHNAPPA V, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. VENKATESH V S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. CHOWDA REDDY L N S/O NAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. JAGADEESH KUMAR S/O KITTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 5. HASEN SABI S/O MOHAMMED SAB, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001 2. GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAVANKI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 REP BY ITS HEADMASTER 3. M K SURESH S/O LATE M N KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A NO 35/6, 38TH B CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041 4. SHASHIDHARA S/O JAGANATH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO 21-B, 3RD MAIN, 8TH BLOCK, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041 5. LEELAVATHAMMA W/O L S JAGANATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 6. L S JAGANATH S/O LATE L M SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI K. SHRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; NOTICE SERVED ON R3 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO SAFEGUARD THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KOLAR IN SY.NO.97/3 FOR AN EXTENT OF 0.30 GUNTAS IN LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul S. Reddy for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. K. Shridhara for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are served and unrepresented. 2. Five petitioners have presented this petition styling it as public interest petition. The petitioners claim to be the villagers of Lakshmipura Village, Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluka, Kolar District. 3. It is the inter alia contended that the land bearing Survey Nos.92, 97/1 and 97/3 admeasuring 0.30 Guntas, 0.14 Guntas and 0.31 Guntas respectively situated at Lakshmipura Village belonged to one Pattabhirama Rao son of late Ramappa. A gift deed was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 executed by the said Pattabhirama in the name of the Maharaja of Mysore on 26.05.1956 in turn, the Maharaja of Mysore authorised the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar to accept the said gift deed. Accordingly, the gift deed was executed. It is stated that the gift deed was executed with an intention to establish a school for the villagers at Lakshmipura Village. It is the further case that the possession of the property was taken by Government Primary School and the land has been used for playground for children since then. 3.1 It is stated that the said Pattabhirama died long back without leaving any legal heirs. It is further alleged that the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 wanted to grab the property which belonged to the school. It was stated that the registered sale deed dated 07.04.2012 was executed although khata was not changed. It is stated that now compound wall is also constructed surrounding the property. 4. It was contended by learned advocate for the petitioners that the property in question belonged to one Pattabhirama who had executed a gift deed as stated above in the name of the Maharaja of Mysore who authorised the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 District to accept the gift deed. It was sought to be highlighted that the land was required to be utilised as per the intention of donee and that, accordingly it was used as playground for the children. 4.1 It was contended that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not the Class-I heirs of the said Pattabhirama and they, claiming to be the Class-II heirs without any basis, executed a sale deed in respect of the land in favour of respondent No.5 and in turn, respondent No.5 further sold a portion of the property to her husband who is respondent No.6. It was submitted that all the respondents are in collusion. 5. In light of the above facts pleaded and contended, it is prayed to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1-the State of Karnataka and respondent No.2-the Government Primary School to protect the property in question. It is further prayed to direct respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are private parties, not to interfere or put up any structure over the land bearing Survey No.97/3. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 5.1 Along with the papers of the petition, figures on record the copy of the registered sale deed evidencing the sale in favour of the private respondents. 5.2 On consideration of the facts of the case and on plain reading of the pleadings as well as the documents found on the record of the petition, the position emerge is that what is sought to be agitated in the petition in the name of public interest petition are the private rights. The rights sought to be advanced are in the nature of civil rights. Not only that the gift deed and sale deed are executed by and amongst the private parties. The rights are claimed and pleaded to be originating accordingly. 5.3 There is no prayer in respect of the sale deed. The petitioners have not prayed to set aside the same. Even otherwise, such a prayer would not be maintainable in a writ petition and the remedy for the petitioners is to go to the Civil Court when disputed question of fact arises. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB WP No. 2405 of 2024 6. No case is made out to exercise the public interest jurisdiction. 7. The petition is summarily dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21