- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3956 WP No. 31648 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.31648 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI B SIDDARAJU S/O LATE SRI BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A DODDI PALYA BETHANAGERE DHAKALE HUSKUR POST DASANPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 162. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R B SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU 560001. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (ADLR) BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAWAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP ) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3956 WP No. 31648 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE IMPUGNED LETTER (TILUVALIKE PATRA) DATED 26.08.2024 BEARING NO. BHU.SA.NI/MO JA NI/20010624106329/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. 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 This petition is filed assailing the impugned letter issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B. 2. Petitioner's primary contention is that respondent No.2/Assistant Director of Land Records cannot conduct a survey in respect of land bearing Sy.No.27 in view of pendency of suit in O.S.No.429/2007. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the impugned letter dated 26.08.2024. 4. The present petitioner, on receipt of notice, sent by the respondent No.2 has filed objections stating that he has filed suit in O.S.No.429/2007 and the trial - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3956 WP No. 31648 of 2024 Court has granted a stay and therefore, has objected to conduct survey. The respondent No.2, however, having verified the records, in absence of any interim order, granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.429/2007 citing a Circular has resolved to proceed with the survey work in accordance with law. This letter is under challenge. 5. On closer examination of the letter, petitioner on the strength of pendency of suit is objecting survey. One Balaramu who has purchased the property under registered sale deed has moved an application seeking tatkal phodi based on sale deed. 6. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the individual at whose behest the survey is now being sought, namely Balaramu, has not been impleaded as a party to the writ proceedings. The absence of a necessary party in a writ petition, particularly when the relief sought directly affects their rights and interests, renders the petition defective and unsustainable in law. The non-joinder of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3956 WP No. 31648 of 2024 Balaramu, who has allegedly initiated the process of survey by submitting an application before the competent authority, precludes the petitioner from effectively challenging the said process in his absence. The principles of natural justice dictate that any person likely to be affected by an order must be afforded an opportunity to be heard, and failure to do so vitiates the proceedings. 7. Secondly, the pendency of a civil suit does not, in itself, act as a bar against the competent authority’s power to conduct a survey when a request is made accompanied by relevant title documents. It is a settled principle that administrative or statutory authorities are not automatically restrained from discharging their duties merely because of ongoing civil litigation unless there is a specific order of restraint from the competent court. In the present case, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sale deed obtained by Balaramu is disputed, a closer examination of the relief sought in the suit reveals that the petitioner primarily - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3956 WP No. 31648 of 2024 prays for a declaration of absolute ownership over the suit schedule property and a consequential injunction. Notably, the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of Balaramu is not directly under challenge in the suit proceedings. This distinction is crucial, as the petitioner cannot, in the absence of a direct challenge to the sale deed, seek to prevent the survey proceedings merely on the ground of asserting ownership over the entire extent of land. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not lend support to the case at hand, as they do not pertain to situations where the relief sought in a pending suit does not encompass the specific issue now raised in the writ petition. In view of these circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27