- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20565 WP NO.17286 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.17286 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.K. RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE K.C. KEMPE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.471, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GOKULA 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 022. 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE K.P.C. PUTTALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS. 3. SRI. D.K. MURTHY S/O K. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 4. SRI. K.P. KEMPE GOWDA S/O LATE CHAME GOWDA @ APPAJI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS. 5. SRI. CHANDRE GOWDA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 6. SRI. KEMPE GOWDA S/O LATE SHIVARAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 7. SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE CHOWDE GOWDA @ THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20565 WP NO.17286 OF 2023 8. SRI. GANESH KUMAR S/O LATE CHOWDE GOWDA @ THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 9. SRI. A. MANJU S/O LATE K.P. CHAME GOWDA @ APPAJI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. PETITIONERS 2 TO 9 ARE R/AT: ARCHAKARAHALLI VILLAGE, FIROZ FARM VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NANDA KUMAR B.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER, VIDHANA SOUDHA-2, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KENGAL HANUMANTHARAYA BHAVAN, B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGARA - 560 019. 3. THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER, ALI OSCAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20565 WP NO.17286 OF 2023 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA, B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGARA - 560 019. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAMANAGARA JILLA PANCHAYATH BHAVAN, RAMANAGARA 577 005. 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 8. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER VIBHUTHIKERE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VIBHUTHIKERE KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. 9. M/S ANURADHA PROPERTIES AND TOWNSHIP REP. BY M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, CHAIRMAN, HOSUR ROAD, KAMADHENU LAYOUT, NARAYANA REDDY LAYOUT, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. 10. M/S ANURADHA PROPERTIES AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. C. RAJASHEKAR REDDY, NO.221, 2ND PHASE, 15TH CROSS, H.S.R. LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1, R4 AND R5; SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20565 WP NO.17286 OF 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO RELEASE AND EFFECT KATHA OF THE SITE BEARING NOS.35, 36, 54, 130, 439 AND 440 OF ARCHAKARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 AND TO FORFIET THE SAME TO GOVERNMENT AND TO AUCTION THE SAME AND THE AUCTION SALE PROCEEDS TO BE DIVERTED TOWARDS THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER The prayer made in the writ petition reads as under: "Issue Mandamus, directing the respondents not to release and effect Katha of the site bearing Nos.35, 36, 54, 130, 439 and 440 of Archakarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District in favour of the respondent Nos.9 and 10 and to forfiet the same to Government and to auction the same and the Auction sale proceeds to be diverted towards the completion of the project." 2. Heard Sri. Nanda Kumar B.L., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5; Sri. Kiran Kumar T.L., learned counsel appearing for the respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20565 WP NO.17286 OF 2023 No.2; and Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 3. Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 4 and 5, I have carefully examined the prayer made in the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioners have sought for writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent-Authorities, not to do the public duty. In this regard, I am of the considered opinion that, such prayer in the writ petition is not maintainable as the writ of mandamus will be issued for positive direction to the respondent-Authorities to do the public duty. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24