- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2932 WP No. 20173 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20173 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K. SUSAI RAJ SON OF LATE KIREETAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, GERADI, TEMPLE ROAD, T C PALYA, BENGALURU - 560036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE -560001 2. THE TAHSILAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R PURAM, BENGALURU -560036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2023 PASSED IN LGC(P) NO.1243/2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2932 WP No. 20173 of 2024 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 petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking a direction against respondent No.2 – the Tahsildar, to consider his representation and take appropriate action against 21 individuals who have allegedly encroached upon state-owned land. The petitioner contends that despite bringing the issue to the notice of the competent authorities, no effective measures have been taken to remove the encroachments, thereby necessitating judicial intervention. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has brought to the attention of this Court that the petitioner had earlier filed a complaint before the Land Granting Court seeking redressal of his grievance. However, the said complaint was rejected by the Land Granting Court. Notwithstanding such rejection, the authorities were directed to ensure that no illegal encroachments subsist on the state-owned property. Further, based on instructions received from the concerned officials, the learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2932 WP No. 20173 of 2024 appropriate action has already been initiated against individuals who have encroached upon the land in question. 3. Upon considering the submissions made, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner, not being an aggrieved person in the strict legal sense, cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is typically granted to enforce a legal right of the petitioner or a corresponding duty of the public authority, which, in the present case, is not demonstrated. Consequently, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. Nevertheless, in light of the assurance given by the learned Additional Government Advocate that appropriate action is already contemplated against illegal encroachments, this Court finds that no further directions are warranted in the matter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE THM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13