- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26587 WP No. 19998 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 19998 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. N. MANJUNATH S/O. B.S. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAPLAYA VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE POST AND HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.B. MANIKANTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 452 117. 3. WONDERLA HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LTD, R/BY COMPANY ACT 2013, WATER GAMING ZONE, AT NO.648-B, BINNAMANGALA, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26587 WP No. 19998 of 2025 1ST PHASE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) ------ THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.04.2025 WITH REGARD TO ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT/ OCCUPATION OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND IN SY NO.106/2 MEASURING 3 ACERS 01 GUNTA AND IN SY NO. 28 MEASURING 2 ACERS IN BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGRA TALUK BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 WONDERLA PARKS AND RESORTS PVT.LTD AS PER ANNEXURE- A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents no.1 and 2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is to consider the representation dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure-A) by the respondent-authorities. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26587 WP No. 19998 of 2025 3. A careful perusal of the averments made in the representation, it makes it clear that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim such a relief against respondent no.3 since the petitioner is not being aggrieved by the same. 4. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40 CT: BHK