- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1706 WP No. 25561 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.25561 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: UMA RAVI W/O GETHANAND AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.701, 10TH CROSS VINAYA MARGA SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT MYSORE-570011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.V.M.ADEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE-570001 3. THE THASHILDHAR MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1706 WP No. 25561 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CASE NO.LND/332/2017(E-19385) PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN DATED 24/08/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A 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 In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, who has declined to entertain a revision seeking damages to the tune of Rs.1,21,57,090/-. Assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is consequentially seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,21,57,090/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1706 WP No. 25561 of 2023 3. The petitioner contends that the private property owned by her is being subjected to demolition by the respondents-State under the pretext of removing encroachments. It is asserted that this action is arbitrary and amounts to an infringement of her rights over her property. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), upon instructions, has clarified that the measures initiated by the State were solely aimed at addressing encroachments and not intended to target the petitioner’s lawful property. This competing narrative indicates that there exists a fundamental dispute regarding the factual matrix of the case, particularly as to whether the petitioner's property was unlawfully demolished under the guise of an anti-encroachment drive. 4. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on record, this Court is of the considered view - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1706 WP No. 25561 of 2023 that the present dispute is purely civil in nature, revolving around contested facts that require meticulous examination. Constitutional courts, operating under Article 226 of the Constitution, are not suited to delve into or resolve such disputed factual questions, as their primary role is to adjudicate issues of law, constitutional rights, and jurisdictional errors. In the instant case, determining whether the petitioner’s property was wrongfully demolished and whether she is entitled to damages necessitates the presentation of oral and documentary evidence. Such an evidentiary exercise is within the exclusive domain of civil courts, which are equipped with the procedural mechanisms to evaluate competing claims through a detailed trial process. 5. In light of these considerations, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to seek redressal of her - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1706 WP No. 25561 of 2023 grievance. The Civil Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced, will be in a position to adjudicate upon the petitioner's entitlement to any relief, including damages, if warranted. This Court, therefore, refrains from exercising its writ jurisdiction in a matter that is essentially factual and requires adjudication on the merits by the Civil Court. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2