- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010444582026 NC: 2026:KHC:39736 WP No. 20134 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20134 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI BHARATH B M S/O B R MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BELLURU VILLAGE, SHUKRAVARASANTHE POST, HETHURU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K GURUDHATTA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, SAKLESHPUR TALUK, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010444582026 NC: 2026:KHC:39736 WP No. 20134 of 2026 HASSAN DISTRICT573134. 3. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KURUBATHUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, HETHUR HOBLI, SAKLESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION/NOTICE BEARING GRA.PAM.KU NO./2026-27 DATED 12.04.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- J; QUASH THE COMMUNICATION BEARING LND(HE)12/2021-23 DATED 09.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G, INSOFAR AS IT DIRECTS CANCELLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S E-SWATHU; III) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PETITIONER'S PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY EXCEPT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010444582026 NC: 2026:KHC:39736 WP No. 20134 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner's grievance is with the third respondent’s Communication dated 12.04.2026 [Annexure-J]. The third respondent has issued this Communication informing the petitioner that he has been given the advantage of revenue entries for a particular site carved out of Sy.No.85 of Kurubathur Village [the subject property] based on a Hakku Pathra but the details of such Hakku Pathra are not part of the concerned register and therefore the revenue entries [including e-swathu] will be cancelled and he will have to surrender possession. 2. Sri K. Gurudhatta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Hakku Pathra is issued in favour of the original beneficiary about 40 years back and that there have been multiple transfers with the petitioner being the recent purchaser and that the revenue entries that have - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010444582026 NC: 2026:KHC:39736 WP No. 20134 of 2026 prevailed over decades cannot be cancelled only because the concerned is not able to verify the details of the Hakku Pathra. Sri K.Gurudhatta argues for interference against dispossession without an opportunity to show cause. 3. Sri Bopanna Belliappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first and the second respondents, and Sri.M.S.Devaraju, a learned standing counsel for the third respondent who accepts notice for this respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition. This Court is of the view that if the revenue entries have prevailed in favour of the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest over decades, before there can be interference, on whatever ground, the petitioner must be issued with notice extending opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The principles of natural justice would be violated if this opportunity is not extended. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010444582026 NC: 2026:KHC:39736 WP No. 20134 of 2026 4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned Communication dated 12.04.2026 [Annexure-J] must only be read as a Show Cause Notice with opportunity to the petitioner to file response with directions to the third respondent to consider the same on perusal of all records and then proceed to pass a reasoned order. If the petition must be disposed of in these terms, this Court must also direct that the petitioner must not be dispossessed from the subject property until there is a reasoned order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA Ct:sr