- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14774 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. T.V. VENKATESH S/O MR. LATE THALLAM VISHWANATHIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT SKPT ROAD Y N HOSAKOTE TOWN AND HOBLI PAVADAGA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572141. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN JOSHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 627, 6TH FLOOR, GATE -1, M.S.BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE TALUK SURVEYOR Y N HOSAKOTE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572141. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA ) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AND QUASH UNDATED NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DIRECT SURVEY OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY ON 02.05.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER I have heard Sri. Varun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Siddarth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing the notice produced at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2 for conducting survey. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel Sri. Varun Joshi, appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has issued notice at the behest one Sri. Ramanjinappa, who is neither the owner of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 land as shown in the notice nor the adjacent owner of the land shown in the notice. 3. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the court to proceedings in OS No.25 of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada that, the impugned notice has been issued without authority by the respondent No.2 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Siddarth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.245 of Y.N.Hosakote Village, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District, has been acquired by the State Government, and thereafter the phodi has been conducted long back. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 petitioner has no legal right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.245/2 which is reserved for 'Sante Maidana' and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is averred in the petition that, the grand father of the petitioner- Thallam Suryanarayana, is the original owner of the land bearing Sy.No.245, measuring 04 acres, 31 guntas, excluding karab. After the death of the grand father of the petitioner, father of the petitioner has succeed to the aforementioned land. It is also forthcoming from the petition that, the father of the petitioner died and the petitioner is the legal representative of deceased T.S.Vishwanath. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed OS No.25 of 2025 before the competent civil court seeking relief of declaration in respect of subject land and the suit is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 pending consideration before the competent /civil court. On careful examination of the impugned notice at Annexure-A wherein, the respondent No.2 has issued notice to conduct survey in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.245/2, which is the subject matter in OS No.25 of 2025. It is also forthcoming from the impugned notice that, the initiation of the survey has been made at the behest of one Ramanjanapp, who is neither a claimant of the subject of the land nor a adjacent owner of the land bearing Sy No.245. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.2 has issued notice at the behest of the said applicant and same amounts to colourable exercise of power by respondent No.2. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the impugned notice at Annexure-A requires to be set aside and accordingly, notice at Annexure-A is set aside. However, it is made clear that, if the land in question belongs to the respondent-State - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19359 WP No. 14774 of 2025 Government, it is open for them to agitate their rights in a manner known to law. It is pertinent to mention here that, since the notice at Annexure-A issued by Respondent No.2 is being set aside, as stated above, all further actions taken pursuant to the said notice shall stand invalidated. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32