- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13753 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S T SHIVANANDA, SON OF THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. SMT. THIPPAMMA WIFE OF DODDASHEELAM, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 3. SMT. K R DEEPA W/O OF S T MAHINDANATH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SRI S TT MAHINDRANATH SON OF S E THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5. SRI. T NIRANJANMURTHY SON OF D S THIPPERUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 6. SRI. S T MANJUNATHA S/O THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF CHIKKAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, TURUVANURU HOBLI, CHITRDURGA TALUK, CHITRDURGA - 577 502. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. THANIMA BEKAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRUTHVEEN PRALHAD.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE THASILDAR, THASILDAR OFFICE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA- 577 501 REPRESENTED BY THASILDAR. *3. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ONAKE OBAVVA CIRCLE CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 4. MR. N.R. MANJUNATHA S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKAGINDANAHALLI VILLAGE TURUVANURU HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; * SRI. SHIVA BEERAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) *Retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 17.10.2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH ANNEXURE-A1 BEARING NO.NCRCR- 21/2020-21 DATED 23.03.2022, ANNEXURE-A2 BEARING NONCRCR-21/2020-21 DATED 17.09.2022, ANNEXURE-A3 BEARING NO.NCRCR- 21/2020-21 DATED 07.10.2022, ANNEXURE-A4 BEARING NO.NCRCR-21/2020-21 DATED 07.03.2023 AND ANNEXURE-A5 BEARING NO.NCRCR-21/2020-21 DATED 16.05.2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners claim under late Thippeswamy, and they are aggrieved by the notices issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. These notices are appended as Annexures-A1 to A5. The jurisdictional Tahsildar, in issuing the impugned notices, has concluded that there is a village road in Sy.Nos.121, 126 and 128 of Chikkagondanahalli village, Turuvanur Hobli, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 Chitradurga Taluk and that the petitioners as also the others mentioned in the notices must remove the encroachments on the village roads. It is undisputed that the petitioners have applied with the Deputy Commissioner disputing the fourth respondent’s claim on the existence of a Road in these survey numbers, and the fourth respondent has also filed similar applications. The petitioners' grievance with the impugned notices is because of the Tahsildar's direction to remove the alleged encroachment. 2. Ms. Thanima Bekal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Tahsildar could not have assumed jurisdiction to decide a claim on whether there is particular access through private land, and if there is any access, the nature thereof as the jurisdiction to decide on those aspects is conferred with the Deputy Commissioner [or a Survey Officer not lower in the rank than the Deputy Commissioner] after a formal enquiry. The petitioners' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 grievance as aforesaid is examined after hearing Mr.Shiva Beeraiah, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Mr. Shamanth Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first to third respondents. 3. The Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads as under: 67. Public Roads, etc., and all lands which are not the property of others belong to the Government: - (1) All public roads, streets, lanes and paths, bridges, ditches, dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks and all canals and water-courses and all standing and flowing waters, and all lands wherever situated which are not the property of individuals or of aggregate of persons legally capable of holding property, and except in so far as any rights of such persons may be established, in or over the same, and except as may be otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, are and are hereby declared to be with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government. [Explanation: In this section, "high-water mark" means the highest point reached - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 by ordinary spring tides at any season of the year]. (2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner after formal inquiry to pass an order deciding the claim. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (2), or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit contesting the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the final decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties. These provisions provide for adjudication on a claim over any property that could come within the scope of sub-section (1) Section 67 of the Act and after a formal enquiry with further remedy to the Civil Court concerned provided such remedy is exercised within one year from the date of the order. 4. Mr. Shiva Beeraiah proposes to rely upon the Circular dated 20.10.2023 to contend that the Tahsildar is conferred with the jurisdiction to remove - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 encroachments. The State Government has indeed issued Circular which stipulates that the Tahsildar may remove obstructions on footpaths, cart road and road as shown in the village map but this cannot eclipse an enquiry as is contemplated under Section 67 (2) of the Act which would be imperative if there is any dispute about right over a public road, street or lane or path. Therefore, this Court must intervene and observe that the parties must prosecute the remedy with the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar's jurisdiction to remove encroachments cannot be sustained before there is adjudication. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed and the impugned notices [Annexures-A1 to A5] are quashed but subject to the liberty as aforesaid. [B] The petitioners and the fourth respondent are reserved with liberty to file a certified - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35183 WP No. 13753 of 2023 copy of this order with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and seek expeditious disposal of the pending proceedings. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr