- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O CHANDRAIAH 2. SRI. G.V. DEVAPPA AGED ABUT 68 YEARS S/O DODDAVEERABADARAPPA BOTH ARE R/AT JANGAMA GURJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-562101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N N DAMODAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MUNEMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O BANAPPA R/AT JANGAMA GURJENAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATURU HOBLI, Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-562101 SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs 1.A. SRI BANAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, HUSBAND OF LATE MUNEMMA, R/O JANGAMAGURJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 562101. 1.B. SMT BHAGYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O BANAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA, R/O AVATHI VILLAGE AND POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. 1.C SRI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O BANAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA, R/O JANGAMA GURJENAHALLI VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 562101. 1.D. MISS SINDU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O RAMESH AND LATE SHANTHA 1.E. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O RAMESH AND LATE SHANTHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 BOTH 1.D & 1.E ARE R/O CHINNAKOTE VILLAGE, SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 562101. 2. SRI. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O BANAPPA R/AT JANGAMA GURJENAHALLI VILLAGE SUGATURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-562101 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAWR VEEDI BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINOD REDDY V, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & C) & R2, R1(B), R1(D) & R1(E) - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS H/S V/C/O DTD: 04.09.2024; SRI.DEVARAJ.C.H, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 17.10.2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO-5586/2021 (KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID WP. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for respondents- writ petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are essentially aggrieved by the fact that no liberty as been reserved to the Government by the judgment under appeal to take appropriate action on the complaints preferred by the appellants as against the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 regularization of unauthorized occupation by the private respondents herein. 3. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in Lalitha Sastry v. State of Karnataka and Others in ILR 2008 KAR 4520 to hold that the order passed by the statutory authority is illegal and unsustainable. However, it is submitted that in Lalitha Sastry's Case, liberty was specifically reserved to the State to comply with the requirements of law and to take further action in accordance with law. It is submitted that in the instant case, such liberty is not reserved and in such circumstances, the appellants, who were the complainants before the authority are put to prejudice. 4. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that order of the statutory authority is found to be untenable for non- compliance of the statutory formalities, liberty ought to have been reserved to the Government or its functionaries to take appropriate action in accordance with law on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2815-DB WA No. 136 of 2022 complaint submitted by the appellants. It is therefore clarified that liberty is reserved in the instant case also to the Government or its functionaries to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, after complying with all due procedures, on the complaint preferred by the appellants. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6