- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22658 WP No. 17018 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 17018 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE PAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINKURLI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA-571 455. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401. 3. THE THASILDAR, CHINKURLI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA - 571 455. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22658 WP No. 17018 of 2024 4. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA - 571 455. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TAHSILDAR TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-F TO THIS W.P AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT TO DISTURB THE USE OF CART ROAD AND NOT TO CUT AND REMOVE THE STANDING TREES IN SY.NO.8 OF KAMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINKURLI HOBLI, PNADAVAPURA TALUK AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard, learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is sought for direction to respondent No.3 to consider the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22658 WP No. 17018 of 2024 representation dated 12.12.2023 at (Annexure-F), inter alia sought for direction to respondent authorities not to disturb the use of cart road and not to remove the standing trees in Sy.No.8 of Kamanayakanahalli Village, Pandavapura Taluk. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in not considering the claim made by the petitioner herein and in that view of the matter, respondent No.4 herein, is disturbing the use of cart road which is situated adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioner and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. V.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections and submitted that, the civil suit in O.S.No.93/2009 filed by respondent No.4 herein against the petitioner herein, which came to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22658 WP No. 17018 of 2024 decreed by the competent Civil Court on 25.10.2017 and thereafter, same came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5001/2018. He also submitted that, the petitioner herein has preferred R.S.A.No.30/2024 which is pending before this Court. He further contended that, the representation made by the petitioner herein as per Annexure-F is the counterblast, insofar as the petitioner herein having suffered judgment and decree by the Civil Court and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to dismissal of the petition on the ground that the disputed question of facts are involved in this petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful observations of the writ papers would indicate that, the civil suit in O.S.No.93/2009 between the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein, came to be decreed in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22658 WP No. 17018 of 2024 respondent No.4 herein on 25.10.2017, which came to be confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5001/2018 on 19.08.2023. It is also not in dispute that R.S.A.No.30/2024 is pending consideration before this Court. I am of the view that, the writ petition cannot be accepted on the sole ground that the disputed question of facts have to be adjudicated by the revenue authorities if their claim is allowed to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 12.12.2023 at Annexure-F. 7. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the present petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60