Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33430 (KAR)

SMT PUSHPALATHA G S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/23510/2026 · 2026-07-31

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523572026 NC: 2026:KHC:40362 WP No. 23510 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.23510 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPALATHA G.S. W/O LATE DHARMARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MALASAVARA VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573101. 2. SRI. SWAGATH, S/O. LATE DHARMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT MALASAVARA VILALGE AREHALLI HOBLI BELURU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523572026 NC: 2026:KHC:40362 WP No. 23510 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHAPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BELUR TALUK, BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE/ORDER DATED 13.03.2026 BEARING NO.ATIKRAMANA(A)28/22-23 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523572026 NC: 2026:KHC:40362 WP No. 23510 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners herein are assailing the notice dated 13.03.2026 bearing No. ATIKRAMANA(A)28/22-23 (Annexure- C) issued by respondent No.3. 2. Sri. Vijay Krishna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, petitioner No.1 has made an application being an unauthorised occupant of the land in question in Sy. No.15 measuring 3 acres of land situated at Madenahalli Village of Belur Taluk, in Form-57 seeking regularisation of the land in question and the same is pending consideration before the respondent - authorities and accordingly, submitted that it is the duty of the respondent - authorities to consider the application, instead, the respondent - authorities have issued a notice for eviction of petitioner and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned notice at Annexure-C and submitted that the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523572026 NC: 2026:KHC:40362 WP No. 23510 of 2026 impugned notice has been issued to avoid any encroachment being made by the petitioner in respect of the public property and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the material on record would indicate that as per Annexure-A, petitioner No.1 has made an application seeking regularisation of the land in question. In that view of the matter, as the said application is yet to be considered by the respondent - authorities, I am of the view that, the respondent - authority cannot issue notice for eviction from the schedule property. 5. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of SRI. NARASIMHARAJU Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2024 SUPREME (Online) (KAR) 22131, I am of the view that, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 is required to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010523572026 NC: 2026:KHC:40362 WP No. 23510 of 2026 (ii) The notice dated 13.03.2026 bearing No. ATIKRAMANA(A)28/22-23 (Annexure-C) issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the respondent - authority shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners, till the application made by the petitioner for regularisation as per Annexure-A, is considered by the authorities concerned and appropriate order passed in accordance with law. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38