- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1883 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHANTAMMA D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT. MANGALA GOWRI, W/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BASSATTI KOPPALU, HASSAN CITY, KARNATAKA - 573 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CESC, TRANSMISSION STATION, RURAL DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CESC, TRANSMISSION STATION, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 RURAL DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. 4. SRI. RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O GANGANNA R/A NO. 89/18 HAEROHALLI RAOD, VISHWANEEDAM ANJANA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 091 5. SRI. G.M. SURESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O MOODLI GIRIGOWDA R/AT B.M. ROAD, OPPOSITE TO KEMCO, KSRTC RESIDENTIAL AREA GAVENNAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN - 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 SRI. NATARAJU T., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS NO.2 AND 3, DATED 06.12.2024 (ANNX-L) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Writ Petition is filed for following reliefs - “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to consider the representation, dated 06/12/2024 (Annexure-L) submitted by the petitioners; ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to refrain from issuing electricity connections to the prospective site purchasers, who are claiming a fraudulent title under the sale deeds executed by respondent no.4 and 5 pertaining to lands in new Sy.no.94/1, 94/2 and 94/3 (old Sy. no.22/P6) situated at Yadiyur village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk; iii. Grant any other appropriate order, writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Sri Mahesh Y.L., learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were owners of land to an extent of 2 Acres 2 guntas in old Sy.No.22/P6, new Sy.Nos.94/1, 94/2 and 94/3 of Yadiyur village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk in terms of Will executed their father late Nanjegowda. It was submitted that said Nanjegowda had purchased an extent of 1 Acre - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 2 guntas under registered sale deed dated 01.08.1974 and 1 Acre under registered sale deed dated 14.07.1969 from Sri Channaiah and his wife Jayamma. In view of said sale deeds, the vendor Channaiah and Jayamma had lost title over said property. However, petitioners became aware of sale transactions by children of said Channaiah with regard to petitioners’ property and O.S. no.13/2000 filed against Nanjegowda before Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC-II Court, Hassan for relief of declaration and possession of entire extent of 4 Acres of land including petitioners’ property. Said suit came to be dismissed on 07.02.2005, but challenged in R.A. no.58/2006 before I Fast Track Court at Hassan. During pendency of appeal, they had fraudulently entered into compromise on 13.10.2006, whereunder it was shown that Nanjegowda would retain an extent of 1 Acre 20 guntas, while plaintiffs’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 would get remaining 2 Acres 20 guntas. In terms of decree, they had also got revenue records mutated. 3. Upon noticing fraudulent compromise decree, petitioners herein had filed O.S. nos.52 and 53 of 2007 before Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, at Hassan. It was submitted that though said suits were clubbed and prayer for declaration of title was dismissed, suit was decreed insofar as injunction and granting declaration that compromise decree in R.A. no.58/2006 was not binding on plaintiffs. 4. Such being case, respondents no.4 and 5 were attempting to fraudulently develop entire 4 Acres, form layout and create third party rights. It was further submitted they were also attempting to secure electricity connections from respondents no.2 and 3 by suppressing above decree. 5. Under above circumstances, petitioners were constrained to submit representation on 06.12.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 as per Annexure-L to respondents no.2 and 3 to desist from granting electricity connections to respondents no.4 and 5 or prospective purchasers in respect of any portion of petitioners’ land i.e., Sy.nos.94/1, 94/2 and 94/3 of Yadiyur village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk. 6. It was submitted despite acknowledging receipt of representation at Annexure-L, same was kept in cold storage without consideration. 7. Therefore, petitioners were constrained to approach this Court. Learned counsel for petitioners, therefore, prayed for allowing Writ Petition. 8. On other hand, learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1 Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri Nagaraju T., learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 opposed petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 9. It was submitted, having given a representation to respondents no.2 and 3, petitioners had obtained an interim order against respondents. 10. It was submitted that present Writ Petition was in a nature of suit and would not be tenable. On said grounds, sought for dismissal. 11. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 submitted in case petitioners’ representation at Annexure-L was pending, same would be considered in accordance with law within reasonable time. 12. Learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5, on other hand, would submit that petitioners had suppressed fact that said land was a granted land and in proceedings for restoration initiated under provisions +of Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) it was restored to legal representatives of original grantee - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 and respondents no.4 and 5 had thereafter purchased said lands from them. 13. As such, respondents no.4 and 5 were holding title. Therefore, petitioners were not entitled for any relief. 14. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused material on record. 15. From above, petitioners’ grievance herein is non- consideration of petitioners’ representation at Annexure-L by respondents no.2 and 3. Pendency of representation is not seriously disputed. Petitioners are also seeking for an order restraining respondents from granting electricity connection in respect of petitioners’ land. Said relief is in nature of an injunction and for which filing of Writ Petition would not be appropriate. Therefore, same is rejected. 16. Insofar as other prayer, for direction to consider petitioners’ representation, in view of fact that representation at Annexure-L has apparently - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33951 WP No. 1883 of 2025 remained without consideration, Writ Petition is disposed of by directing respondents no.2 and 3 to consider it in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. And by reserving liberty to petitioners as well as respondents no.4 and 5 to submit relevant documents or records in support of their respective claims before respondents no.2 and 3 within a period of two weeks from today. Petitioners would be at liberty to approach appropriate Forum insofar as said prayer no.2 is concerned. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11