- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 42522 OF 2016 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S ASHOK REDDY S/O.SRIKANTHA REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, 2. SRI S PUNDARESSHA REDDY S/O.SRIKANTHA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS, 3. SRI VIJAYA UPENDRA S/O.L.CHINNAPPA REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS, 4. SRI GANESH REDDY S/O.CHIKKANNAIAH REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, 5. SRI SRINIVASA REDDY S/O.RAMAIAH REDDY, AGED 55 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE (SEETHARAM PALYA) MAHADEVAPURAM POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, 560048. BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 (BY SRI. B RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTEMENT OF REVENUE VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE THASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 048. 4. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 5. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU EAST TALUK, KR PURAM 560048, BENGALURU. 6. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, NR SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. 7. VENUGOPALA REDDY N S/O. VENUGOPALA REDDY, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE (SEETHARAM PALYA) MAHADEVAPURAM POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, 560048. BENGALURU EAST TALUK. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 8. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY S/O. VENUGOPALA REDDY, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE (SEETHARAM PALYA) MAHADEVAPURAM POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, 560048. BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 9. M/S SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1976, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1, SJR PRIMUS, 7TH AND 8TH FLOOR, KORAMANAGALA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560095. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. K.S.MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-6; SRI. SHARATH G., ADVOCATE FOR R-9; SRI. N.K.KANTHARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-7 & R-8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO 6 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.02.2012, 06.03.2012 AND 05.07.2012 AT ANNEXURE-H1 TO H3, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this petition is to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to consider the representation (Annexure H-1 to Annexure H-3) and also for a direction to conduct a survey in Sy.No.2/1 and identify the 12 guntas of land which was reserved for community purpose way back in the year 1962 in the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in Case Nos.39 and 40. 2. On 30.05.2024, this Court passed an interim order directing the ADLR to conduct the survey, identifying 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/1 situated in Sonnenahalli village, (now called as ‘Seetharamapalya’), K.R.Puram Hobli. Pursuant to the said order, a survey report has been filed, in which it is stated that out of the total extent of 2 acres 12 guntas (including pathway of 2 guntas kharab) i.e., in all 2 acre 10 guntas, 15.08 guntas - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 was in the possession of respondent Nos.7 and 8 and 7 guntas was in the possession of respondent No.9. 3. It is also stated that 1 acres 27 guntas is in the possession of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (the KIADB), who have erected a compound wall over the said land and on an extent of 2.08 guntas, a road has been formed, which is relatable to the 2 guntas of kharab indicated in the RTC as a pathway. 4. In my view, the prayer sought for by the petitioners has been answered by the conduct of this survey. 5. As far as the contentions of the petitioners that the ADLR was required to identify 12 guntas, which according to the petitioners, the ADLR stated was unascertainable, the petitioners would be at liberty to take such steps as is permissible in law to ensure that the alleged reservation made for community purpose is implemented if in fact such a reservation has been made. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1865 WP No. 42522 of 2016 6. It is made clear that nothing said in this order shall be construed as rendering an opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and if in law the petitioners is entitled to seek for implementation of the order Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition in Case Nos.39 and 40, he is at liberty to do so. 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16