- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14083 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O K.M. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KADARINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VIDANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHIKKABALLAPUR, ZILLA ADALITHA BHAVANA, SHIDLAGATTA ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, SHIDLAGATTA TALUK, SHIDLAGATTA - 562 101. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, Y. HUNASENAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI, Y. HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK. 5. HUNASENAHALLI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, Y HUNASENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SCRETARY, H.S. SHASHIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU FOR R3 AND 4; SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF R-4 RELATING TO THE PROPERTY BEARING HOUSE LIST NO. 174/1 OF Y. HUNASENAHALLI AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4/Grama Panchayat has filed a statement of objections. Along with the objections, an endorsement issued by the Grama - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19907 WP No. 14083 of 2025 Panchayat in response to the petitioner’s representation, as evidenced at Annexure-R3, has been placed on record. Upon perusal of the said endorsement, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s representation has been examined and a decision has been taken by the competent authority. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said endorsement was issued during the pendency of the writ petition and after notice was issued to the respondents, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Once the representation is duly considered and decided by the competent authority, the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus does not survive for further consideration. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement at Annexure-R3, if so advised, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK