- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7554 WP No. 57811 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.57811 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. R. RAGHU S/O SRI RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS UDAYAPURA 21ST K M KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI RAMPRASAD C K S/O SRI C K ANANTHAKRISHNAYYA AGED 38 YEARS NO.434, 19TH CROSS, 1ST, AND 3RD BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM U.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7554 WP No. 57811 of 2015 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION BENGALURU. 3. UNDER SECRETARY PETITIONS COMMITTEE KARNATAKA VIDHANA PARISHAD VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NOTICE DATED 14.12.2015 VIDE ANNEX-L ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2; DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 COMMITTEE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the notices issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L and the communication - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7554 WP No. 57811 of 2015 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-M thereby indicating that respondents 2 and 3 are intending to conduct survey of the land bearing Nos. . 2. The State has filed detailed statement of objections. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General citing paragraphs 2, 6 and 9 would submit that the captioned petition is rendered infructuous in the light of the pleadings averred in paragraphs 6 and 9 of statement of objections. 4. Learned Senior Counsel also fairly concedes and admits that the captioned petition does not survive for consideration. However, he tries to persuade this Court that the impugned notice issued by respondent 2 and impugned communication issued by respondent No. 3 vide Annexures-L and M also need to go. 5. Having heard the learned Senior counsel and the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court deems - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7554 WP No. 57811 of 2015 it fit to cull out paragraphs 6 and 9 of the Statement of objections, which read as under: "6. At the outset, it is submitted that the Petition No.48/2015 has already been disposed of by the Petitions Committee and copy of the proceedings dated 12.12.2017 of the Petitions Committee is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 'R1' for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 9. It is submitted that the impugned order would only indicate that the process of survey was directed to be considered by the Petitions Committee and in pursuance of the same, not only the lands for which the RTCs indicate the name of the Petitioner, but also the lands pertaining to 6 other persons were also said to be surveyed. The process of conducting survey is only for identifying particular piece of land and for fixing the boundaries as per the title and revenue documents. There would be no prejudice caused to the Respondents in case such a complaint is carried out. However, since the issue before the Petitions Committee in Petition No.48/2015 has already been disposed of, question of conducting survey does not arise as of now." 6. This Court acknowledges the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the present petition has become infructuous due to the closure of proceedings before respondent No.3/Committee. However, in the interest of clarity and to prevent any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7554 WP No. 57811 of 2015 future ambiguity, this Court finds it necessary to explicitly state that the notice and the communication issued at the behest of respondents 2 and 3 stand subsumed within the closure of the said proceedings. Consequently, any further action arising out of or based on these notices and communications is rendered legally unsustainable. It is, therefore, clarified that the State is precluded from initiating or reviving any proceedings or taking any precipitative action in the future based on the aforementioned notices or communications, ensuring finality to the matter. 7. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2