- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15744 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O SRI. T.L. KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O JAVANEGOWDANA DODDI KANNALI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK DISTRICT 571 401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 401. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB - DIVISION MANDYA - 571 401. 4. THE TAHSILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 401. 5. J. N. CHIKKA MADAIAH, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA., AGE 57 YEARS, 6. K. PREMA, W/O RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 7. CHENNAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 8. KRISHNA, S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 9. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 10. SACHIN, S/O LATE NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 11. NINGAIAH, S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 12. PADMAMMA, W/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 13 ANUSUYA, W/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 14. NAGARAJU, W/O KEMPAIAH, R-5 TO R-14 ALL ARE R/AT JAWANAGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571404. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 15. C. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, S/O CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 16. JAYARAM, S/O CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 17. RAMACHANDRA K.K., S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R-15 TO R-17 ARE R/AT KAGEHALLADODDI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571404. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI.K.MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO R-17) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 MADE IN NO.EVRCR.179/13-14 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERROENOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE APART FROM BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION ANNEXURE-U, 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 In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.05.2017 issued by the respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 No.4 (Annexure-U) and order dated 20.08.2018 in RA No.22 of 2017 (Annexure-V) passed by respondent No.3 and order 13.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2 in RA No.12 of 2018(Annexure-X). 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner on 31.12.2003 and thereafter, the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. The revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner, and the revenue sketch issued by the competent authority is produced as Annexure-D. By communication dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure-E), the Joint Director of Land Records informed that the request made by the petitioner to effect “phodi” (demarcation) was not received and subsequently, the petitioner approached the Survey Department to effect “phodi” and “durust” in respect of the land as per representation dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure-F). It - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 is also stated in the writ petition that, on 15.03.2013, Respondent No.2 directed Respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner’s case for effecting “phodi” in respect of the land in question. However, without considering the petitioner’s claim, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure-J) stating that illegal construction was made on the land granted to the petitioner without a valid conversion order, and accordingly called for an explanation from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2, seeking permission to construct the residential house in land in question. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the notice dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure-N) has been issued to the petitioner herein, indicating about the encroachment made on the road and as such informed the petitioner to stop the construction work as per Annexure-P to the writ petition. The said notice was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 challenged before this court in W.P.No.2647 of 2015 and this court by order dated 16.07.2015 (Annexure- Q) rejected the same. Private respondents herein have filed W.P.No.44034-35 of 2015 and connected matters against the petitioner and her husband and this Court disposed of the same on 29.06.2016, directing the jurisdiction Thasildar to conclude eviction proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing before concluding. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued notice dated 28.09.20165 (Annexure-S) calling upon the petitioner to remove the illegal construction that has been made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.53151 of 2016 before this court challenging the notice dated 28.09.2016 issued by the respondent No.4-Thasildar. This court vide order dated 05.10.2016, (Annexure-T), directed the respondent No.4 to conclude enquiry and take decision in the matter. In the backdrop of these - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 aspects the respondent No.4 conducted the proceedings in Dispute No.EV.R.CR.179/2013-14 and after conducting the detailed enquiry, by order dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure-U) arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner herein have constructed the house on the road, and therefore, directed the petitioner to remove the same. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner herein has approached respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner in RA No.22/2017 and the respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.08.2018 dismissed the appeal and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in RA No.12 of 2018 and respondent No.2 vide order dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-X) dismissed the appeal and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 3. I have heard Sri. J.N. Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. K. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 18. 4. Sri. J.N. Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the proceedings at Annexure-U and contended that, though this court has directed the respondent- authorities to conduct survey in the presence of the petitioner after issuing of notice, however, the entire proceedings has been made in the absence of the petitioner and no opportunity has been extended to the petitioner and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 5. He further invited the attention of the court to the order sheet before the respondent No.2, in RA - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 No.12/2018, at Annexure-X and contended that, the respondent No.2 without considering the material on record and providing fair opportunity to the petitioner to address the arguments has dismissed the appeal and accordingly, sought for interference of this court. 6. Per contra, Sri. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 18, invited the attention of the court to Annexure-R1, wherein, the notice has been issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner and same has been acknowledged by the petitioner herein, however, it is argued that, the same has not been produced before this court deliberately. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 18 that the petitioner has suppressed the true facts before this court. It also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 18 by referring to the finding recorded by the respondent- authorities that the respondent-authorities after - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 conducting the enquiry in the presence of the petitioner has arrived at the conclusion that the house has been constructed on the road and therefore, no interference called for interference of this Court. 7. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities. 8. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be answered in this writ petition as to whether the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and whether the construction of the house is made on the land belonging to the Government. 9. In this regard, having taken note of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2647 of 2015 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 disposed of on 16.07.2015 (Annexure-Q) and order dated 05.10.20156 in W.P.No.53151 of 2016 (Annexure-T) whereby this court directed the respondent-authorities to extend fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein before taking decision. On careful examination of the orders of the respondent-authorities would indicate that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and contended before the respondent-authorities that the land in question have been granted to the petitioner and the petitioner has nothing to do with the road in which the private respondents are claiming schedule land. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the respondent-authorities at Annexure-U would indicate that spot inspection has been made at the instance of the petitioner and private respondents and further sketch has been drawn by the respondent-authorities and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that, the road is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 existing in Sy.No.187 of Javanegowdana Doddi village, Mandya Taluk and District. In that view of the matter, as respondent-authorities have arrived a conclusion that the illegal construction has been made by the petitioner herein on the road, I am of the opinion that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. Insofar as arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that fair opportunity has not been extended to the petitioner and said submission cannot be accepted as the petitioner herein has participated in the proceedings and that apart, it is evident from Annexure- R1 that notice issued by the respondent No.4 has been served on the petitioner. Taking into consideration that the sketch has been prepared by the respondent-authorities after conducting survey and sketch has been signed by the petitioner herein, taking into consideration as all the three respondent-authorities have held that that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24569 WP No. 15744 of 2021 construction of the house has been made on the road, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the question of fact which has been concluded by the respondent-authorities cannot be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, there is no impediment for the respondent-authorities to remove the encroachment, if any at the earliest within an outer limit of two months. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56