- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19942 WP NO.15142 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15142 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE THASILDAR MAGADI, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120. 2. SRI. VENUGOPAL M. TALUK SURVEYOR, MAGADI, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 120. 3. SMT. K.T. MAHALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE M.P. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT KENCHANAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 561 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19942 WP NO.15142 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 06TH MAY, 2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPLICATION NO.29010425205195 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY EARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner herein is assailing the notice dated 06th May, 2025 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2. 3. Heard Sri. Parameshwarappa M.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1. 4. Sri. Parameshwarappa M.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the land in question has been surveyed during the year 2006 and again the respondent-Authorities have issued the impugned notice dated 06th May, 2025 (Annexure-A) to survey the very same land. Therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19942 WP NO.15142 OF 2025 5. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the writ petition. 6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the impugned notice, the same would indicate that the respondent No.2 had issued notice to the petitioner to conduct survey of the land in question at the instance of the application made by the respondent No.3, whose land situated adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35