- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30912 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHUHALLI VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUKA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 138. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-571 511. 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHANNAPATNA TALUK, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RAMANAGARA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 RAMANAGARA-571 511. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHANNAPATNA TALUKA PANCHAYATH, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 6. BHUHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH BHUHALLI, VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK-562 138, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.BHU.GRAM.PUM.83/2018-19 DATED 14.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-N 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 R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.¨sÀÆ.UÁæ.¥ÀA.83/2018-19 dated 14.07.2018 issued by respondent No.6 by which, the petitioner was called upon to produce documents to justify the construction put up by him in Oni (passage). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 2. (i) The petitioner contends that at a partition between his father and his uncles, the property bearing Khaneshumari No.152/117 fell to the share of his father. He contends that based on such partition deed, the name of his father was entered in the property register maintained by the respondent No.6. The petitioner claimed that his father passed away on 02.06.2010 and thereafter, he and his brother succeeded to the said property. He contends that one Mr. Thammaiah had purchased a residential property on the northern side of the petitioner's property vide sale deed dated 13.10.1976. It was mentioned in the said sale deed that on the southern side of the property, there was the backyard belonging to Mr. Puttegowda, who is the grandfather of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner contends that there is no road on the northern side of the property of the said Mr. Thammaiah. It is contended that there is no Oni (passage) between his property and the property of Mr. Thammaiah and whatever vacant space situated between the property of Mr. Thammaiah and the property belongs to the petitioner's family and is not a Oni (passage) for public use. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 (ii) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.6 issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2018 alleging that some villagers had lodged a complaint that he has constructed a compound by encroaching the Oni (passage). The petitioner thereafter submitted a reply on 15.06.2018 along with supporting documents to show that he was constructing compound enclosing his property and not Oni (passage) as alleged. Thereafter, on 20.06.2018, the petitioner filed one more reply along with supporting documents before the respondent No.6. He also submitted a reply dated 20.06.2018 to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with supporting documents to justify the construction put up by him. After the reply along with documents were filed, some villagers again approached the respondent No.6 and lodged a complaint alleging that there was encroachment on the public passage. Based on the same, the respondent No.6 issued a notice dated 14.07.2018 to measure Oni (passage) on 19.07.2018 and directed the petitioner to be present at the spot along with documents. (iii) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the said notice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 had earlier issued a notice dated 11.06.2018 to which the petitioner had filed a reply on 15.06.2018 along with supporting documents. He contends that the respondent No.6 without considering the reply and documents, has blindly issued a second notice to measure Oni (passage) and directed the petitioner to be present at the spot along with documents. He contends that the property belonging to the petitioner is now assessed to property tax and e-khata is also issued identifying the area that belonged to the petitioner. He submits that in e-khata, there is no mention of any passage running between the property of the petitioner and the property of Mr. Thammaiah. Therefore, the notice issued by respondent No.6 is without any basis. At any rate, he contends that the notice could not have been issued without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that the petitioner has challenged a notice issued by the respondent No.6, by which he was called upon to produce documents in respect of construction put up by him by encroaching the passage between his property and property of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 Mr. Thammaiah. He contends that the villagers have grievance against the petitioner constructing the compound in the Oni (passage), which would obstruct the movement of general public and cattle and therefore, the respondent No.6 was obliged in law to conduct survey to identify the property of the petitioner and secure the Oni (passage) for the use of the general public. He therefore, contends that the petitioner is bound to submit his reply to the notice but he has rushed to this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 6. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that it was issued at the behest of some villagers, who had alleged that the petitioner was putting up construction in the Oni (passage) used by the villagers. As rightly claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, similar such notice was issued on 11.06.2018 and the petitioner had submitted his reply on 15.06.2018 enclosing therewith certain documents. The respondent No.6 ought to have considered the said reply and must have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 considered the grievance of the villagers as well as the justification offered by the petitioner before even entertaining the complaint of the villagers and issuing impugned notice dated 14.07.2018. A perusal of the e-khata made out by the respondent No.6 in respect of the property of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is in possession of 209 sq. mtr. of property as against an area measuring 34' x 59' mentioned in the partition deed entered into between his father and his uncles. Therefore, it is for the respondent No.6 to find out where exactly the property as mentioned in the partition deed is located and ascertain its boundaries. In that view of the matter, the petitioner ought not to have rushed to this Court but must have furnished the documents in support of his claim that the place where he is constructing compound wall lies within his ownership. 7. Hence, this petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to file a fresh reply to the notice issued by the respondent No.6 along with the documents within two weeks from today. If the petitioner files reply along with documents within two weeks from today, the respondent No.6 shall consider the same in accordance with law and if need be, to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48890 WP No. 30912 of 2018 conduct an inspection to identify the property that is owned by the petitioner as per the partition and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. Until then, the respondent No.6 shall not take any precipitative action to cause any inconvenience or disturb the construction put up by the petitioner. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52