Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77804 (KAR)

SRI SRINIVASA VADIVEL ACHARI v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

WA/1699/2025 · 2025-11-06

C M Poonacha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44900-DB WA No. 1699 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1699 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRINIVASA VADIVEL ACHARI @SRI SRI SRI. SHA BRA REVANA SIDDA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS MATADHIPATHI OF SRI RAMALINGESHWARA MUTT HARNAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPT. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI ARCHAK P.M. REVANNA S/O MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT PUNUGAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 076. …APPELLANT (BY SRI LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44900-DB WA No. 1699 of 2025 M. S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.18518/2025 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44900-DB WA No. 1699 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18518/2025 (KLR-RES). 2. The appellant claiming to be a constituted power of attorney of the Swamiji of Ramalingeshwara Mutt had filed the aforementioned petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 04.01.2025. A copy of the said representation is placed on record. The appellant, in his representation, sought for the following reliefs: "a) Protect the said land which is in occupation of your authorities from the illegal and unauthorized encroachers to the said property and b) incorporate the name of Sri Sha.Bra.Revanna Siddeshwara Swamigalu of Ramalingeshwara Mutt in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44900-DB WA No. 1699 of 2025 the records pertaining to the land in question for which we would be highly obliged." 3. As is apparent from the above, the appellant had sought that the lands in question described as land bearing Survey No.31 measuring 7 acres and 31 guntas and Survey No.16 measuring 9 acres and 34 guntas located at Punagamaranahalli, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, be protected from illegal encroachment and the name of Sri Sha. Bra. Revanna Siddeshwara Swamigalu of Ramalingeshwara Mutt be recorded in the land records. Insofar as the prayer in regard to alleged illegal and unauthorized encroachment is concerned, no such encroacher or unauthorised occupant is made as a party to the writ petition. Therefore, no relief in regard to the above could be sought. 4. The learned Single Judge had rightly accepted that if there is any private dispute, the same could not be adjudicated by the respondents. 5. Insofar as the interim prayer for entry of the name of Sri Sha. Bra. Revanna Siddeshwara Swamigalu of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44900-DB WA No. 1699 of 2025 Ramalingeshwara Mutt in the land records is concerned, the learned Single Judge has held that no direction in this regard could be issued and thus, the appellant is required to take recourse to the procedure as stipulated in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, the right of the appellant to avail of such procedure is reserved. 6. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22