Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21760 (KAR)

SRI CHANDRAPRASAD RAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15963/2026 · 2026-06-09

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27387 WP No. 15963 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15963 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRAPRASAD RAI S/O VEDHAVATHI RAI S, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NETTAGENIGE MOODNOOR, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU - 575 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27387 WP No. 15963 of 2026 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTUR TALUK PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA -574201. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU - 575 001. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER/COMPETENT POLICE AUTHORITY ESHWARAMANGALA / PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR MEN, AGENTS, SERVANTS OR ANYBODY CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE REMAINING EXTENT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.370/2A OF NITTANIGE PADNOOR VILLAGE, PUTTUR HOBLI, PUTTUR TALUK, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27387 WP No. 15963 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER The learned AGA accepts notice for respondents. 2. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the prayer made in the writ petition, I am of the view that, the disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition and in that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Others Vs. M.K.Jose1, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this writ petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 1 (2015)9 SCC 433