- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24955 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA N.B., W/O. M.D.CHUNCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 105A, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 2. SMT. K.VEDAVATHAMMA, W/O. MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.110.A KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430, 3. SMT. M.D.NAGESHWARI, W/O. BHOGA NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67C, MARENAHALLI LAYOUT, ALSO CALLED AS KEERTHINAGAR NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 4. SMT. SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. SHEKHAR, R/AT NO. 105, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 5. SRI. DODDAMUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 S/O. DODDAMUTHAIAH, R/AT NO. 107A, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. BABY YADAV B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MARUTHI S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MALAVALLI TALTUK, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, MALAVALLI MUNICIPALITY, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 6. SRI. LINGAMANTU, S/O. MARILINGAIAH, AGE MAJOR, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430, 7. SRI. KRISHNA, S/O. MARILINGAIAH, AGE MAJOR, RETIRED VETERINARY INSPECTOR, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 8. SRI. GAVIGOWDA, S/O. JANGEGOWDA AGE MAJOR, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI M.S.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 08/10/2025 NOTICE TO R5, R6, R7 AND R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO-4 AND 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT NO-4 DATED 28-02-2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE REPRESENTATION FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT NO-5 DATED 03.03.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B-1 IN SO FOR IS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED BY REMOVING THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO-6 TO 8 ON PUBLIC ROAD AND PRAY FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT NO-5 DATED 31-05-2025 BEARING NO. ಪಸಮ/ ಕಂ.ಾ/ .ಆ/02/2025-26 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G IN SO FOR IN THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PRAY TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider their representation dated 28.02.2025. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement of the respondent No.5 dated 31.05.2025 bearing No.ಪಸಮ/ ಕಂ.ಾ/ .ಆ/02/2025-26. 2. The petitioners contend that between the year 1990 and 2000, a developer had developed certain sites in an agricultural land and the petitioners had purchased sites and they had constructed their houses, which are connected with electricity and are assessed to tax by the respondent No.5. 3. They contend that in the year 2023-24, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 constructed a compound by blocking the road which was the approach to their houses. The petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 on 28.02.2025 and a representation to the respondent No.5 on 03.03.2025 requesting them to remove the illegal construction - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 put up by the respondent Nos.6 to 8. The respondent No.5 issued an endorsement to the petitioners, directing them to approach the civil Court. The petitioners are therefore before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.6 to 8 have illegally laid a fence blocking the road leading to the properties of the petitioners and it being a public street, the respondent No.5 was bound to take action. They therefore contend that the impugned endorsement be set at nought and the respondent No.5 be directed to take immediate action to restore the road for usage by the general public. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the road in question is not a public road and is not relinquished to the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 has not taken over the same. He therefore contends that this is a private dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 and therefore, the respondent No.5 rightly directed the petitioners to approach the civil Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterated the above and submitted that there is no error in the respondent No.5 issuing the impugned endorsement. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 8. The petitioners claim that the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 have blocked a road, which leads to their houses. There is no document to show the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is a public road. The photograph produced along with the writ petition shows that the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is not a public road but appears to be a private street. It is therefore difficult to accept the claim of the petitioners that the access found in the photograph is a public street. The definition of a public street as contained Section 2(31) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, reads as follows: "(31) "Public street" means any street, road, square, court, alley, passage or riding-path over which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 the public have a right of way whether a thorough-fare on not and includes, a) the road-way over any public bridge or causeway, (b) the foot-way attached to any such street, public bridge or causeway, and (c) the drains attached to any such street, public bridge or causeway, and the land, whether covered or not by any payment verandah or other structure which lies on either side of the roadway up to the boundaries of the adjacent property, whether that property is private property or property belonging to the Government or the Corporation; 9. There is no evidence on record to establish that the private street seen in Annexure-C is either relinquished in favour of the respondent No.5 or that the respondent No.5 has taken control of the said stretch of land. 10. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.5 cannot be compelled to take any action to restore the road for being used by the petitioners. The only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the civil Court in accordance with law. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.5 is therefore appropriate and does not merit interference. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025 Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the civil Court in accordance with law. Any observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of the trial Court deciding the suit that may be filed by the petitioners. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28