- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50213 WP No. 36324 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 36324 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. LATE HUCHCHAYYA R/AT NO.1593, 7TH BLOCK UDBUR VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. UDBUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UDBUR VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570008 REB. BY ITS - PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. SPOORTHY V., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.12.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50213 WP No. 36324 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO.U.GRA.PUM/ / DATED 30.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO) OF THE UDBUR GRAM PANCHAYATH - THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN WHICH IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice dated 30.10.2025 issued by respondent No.2. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is in possession of a dwelling house bearing No.1593 situate in 7th Block, Udbur Village, comprising a constructed portion and an adjoining vacant portion. He contends that his ancestors were in possession of the said property and were paying tax to Panchayat. When things stood thus, certain persons belonging to his community, who owed allegiance to a different political party, proposed to construct a temple. The said group approached respondent No.2 seeking registration of Khata of the said property in the name of the proposed temple. The said persons also attempted to interfere with the petitioner's - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50213 WP No. 36324 of 2025 possession and with his right of way, which resulted in an altercation between the petitioner and the said group. The petitioner claimed that on the request of that group, respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to produce title documents of the property in his possession and to remain present at the spot for inspection. (ii) In response to the said notice, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Pnachayat on 23.09.2025, appraising the Taluk Panchayat of the issue and requested that respondent No.2 be directed to grant him some time to appear, as he was in the process of obtaining legal advice. Respondent No.2, however, refused to grant any time, which compelled the petitioner to again address a letter to the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat expressing his grievance regarding the hurried manner in which respondent No.2 was proceeding. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to produce documents and to remain present at the spot for inspection of the property belonging to him. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50213 WP No. 36324 of 2025 (iii) It is contended that respondent No.2 has no authority in law to act at the behest of an interloper so as to question the title of the petitioner. He contends that the property in his possession is a private property and that respondent No.2 cannot conduct any inspection of such property. He submits that if respondent No.2 was interested in questioning the petitioner's title, it must have either approached the Civil Court or directed the rival group to avail their remedy before the Civil Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submits that the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 is without authority of law and is liable to be set at nought. 4. A perusal of the writ petition does not indicate how the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. He does not even whisper in the writ petition that he is the owner of the said property. On the contrary, the petitioner selectively states that he is in possession of a portion of the property while the remaining portion is vacant. The writ petition discloses that, immediately after receipt of the notice issued by respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50213 WP No. 36324 of 2025 No.2, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Taluk Panchayat seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to grant him more time to appear, as he was in the process of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was not averse to appear before respondent No.2. Since the petitioner has not even made a whisper that he is the owner of the property, in question, respondent No.2 was entitled to examine whether the petitioner was the owner and, if not, it was at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned notice. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of main appeal, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43