Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38822 (KAR)

JAGADISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/5220/2023 · 2025-12-01

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49799 WP No. 5220 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAGADISH S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NO.1661, 14TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT ALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST BANGALORE-65. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NO.669, 17TH MAIN, NARAYANANAGARA, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-62. 3. RAJANNA S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NO.1661, 14TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, ALLALASANDRA, GKVK POST BANGALORE-65. 4. SMT. VINODA W/O SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49799 WP No. 5220 of 2023 OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O NO.132, K RAMAIAH ROAD, DODDATUMAKURU VILLAGE AND POST DODDABALLAPURA TALUKA BANGALORE RURAL-561203. 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SATYANARAYANAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O GANTEKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TOOBAGERE HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL-561205. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADV. FOR SRI A SAMPATH, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-1. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-1. 3. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., NO.178, CENTRAL SQUARE 2ND FLOOR PLATFORM ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADV. FOR R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49799 WP No. 5220 of 2023 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM OBSTRUCTING THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES.; FOR SUITABLE ORDERS TO RESTORE THE PETITIONERS SCHEDULE PROPERTIES TO THE PETITIONERS 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, petitioners claim to be the owners of the sites formed in a residential layout by respondent No.3-Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru (for short “the Society”). 3. The petitioners have sought for a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioners’ schedule properties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49799 WP No. 5220 of 2023 Court, the order dated 2nd April 2025 in W.P.No.6328/2025 wherein the Society has challenged the order dated 05.02.2025 in Appeal No.381/2023-2024 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.4 therein). 4. This Court, vide order dated 2nd April 2025 disposed of the writ petition and operative portion of the order reads as under: “O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 05.02.2025 in Appeal No.381/2023-2024 passed by the 4th respondent, the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.04.2023 bearing No.Sa.Aa.Som/B.U.UV/Pradesha/Ottuvari/22/ 2023-24 and the FIR dated 18.01.2022 registered by the 2nd respondent, stand quashed. (iii) All consequential actions taken pursuant to the subject proceedings would all become a nullity in law. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners herein are members of the Society, I am of the view that, respondents are directed not to interfere with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49799 WP No. 5220 of 2023 petitioners’ schedule properties. However, liberty is reserved to the Forest Department to initiate such proceedings against the petitioners, in accordance with law, to establish their title over the properties in question. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40