Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37769 (KAR)

DAKSHAYINI B v. S.KODAGIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

WP/12524/2025 · 2026-08-29

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289382025 NC: 2026:KHC:47573 WP No. 12524 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12524 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: DAKSHAYINI B D/O BALAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT MARATI PALYA K. G TEMPLE POST NAGASANDRA GRAMA KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK- TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572216 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. DAKSHAYINI.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AMARANATHAN A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S.KODAGIHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH (PDO) KODAGIHALLI KASABA HOBLI GUBBI THALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBI 572216 2. TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE GUBBI THALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBI 572216 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EO) TALUK OFFICE GUBBI THALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289382025 NC: 2026:KHC:47573 WP No. 12524 of 2025 GUBBI 572216 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572101 6. VIMALA BAI W/O CHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT MARATI PALYA K. G TEMPLE POST NAGASANDRA GRAMA KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBI 572216 7. DHANALAXMI BAI W/O MURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT MARATI PALYA K. G TEMPLE POST NAGASANDRA GRAMA KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBL 572216 8. ROOPA D/O GANGARAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT MARATI PALYA K. G TEMPLE POST NAGASANDRA GRAMA KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT GUBBI 572216 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289382025 NC: 2026:KHC:47573 WP No. 12524 of 2025 (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; SRI. BOPANNA.B., AGA FOR R2, R4 & R5; SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA H.G., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE TAHSILDAR TO TAKE STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTIFICATION DTD 20.10.2023 BEARING NO. RDNO 23 LPG 2022 AS PER ANNX-K AND DO THE NEEDFUL TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION ON THE EXISTING ROAD AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Direct the Tahsildar to take steps in accordance with the notification dated 20.10.2023 bearing No. RDNO 23 LPG2022 as per Annexure-K and do the needful to remove the obstruction on the existing road. b. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice. 2. The petitioners’ family members had filed a Public Interest Litigation in WP No.14382/2022 seeking for a prayer to maintain the existing road from Maremma Temple towards Balaji Rao's house in Marati Palya Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289382025 NC: 2026:KHC:47573 WP No. 12524 of 2025 and direct the respondents no.5 to 8 not to put up any obstruction on their side. The said PIL was withdrawn by the petitioners therein by stating that they would be desirous of availing an appropriate remedy as available under law, either in the nature of filing a civil suit or approaching the competent authority under the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 particularly Section 103. 3. Having made such a submission, one of the sisters i.e., the petitioner herein has filed the above writ petition without even adverting to the PIL which had been filed earlier and the orders which had been passed. The same in the considered opinion of this Court amounts to suppression of facts and abuse of the process of the Court. Though this Court could impose costs on the petitioner considering that the petitioner had approached this Court alleging that they had no access, this Court refrains from doing so. The petitioner would always have the liberty to act in terms of the liberty reserved vide Order dated 14.12.2022 passed in WP No.14382/2022 and take such action as was permitted by the Hon'ble Division Bench. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010289382025 NC: 2026:KHC:47573 WP No. 12524 of 2025 4. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed. 5. Since the Court Commissioner had been appointed and the Court Commissioner's fee was to be decided on the basis of the acceptance or otherwise of the Commissioner's report and now that the petition has been dismissed on account of suppression of facts by the petitioner, it would be for the petitioner to make payment of the Court Commissioner's fee, which had been fixed, which shall be so paid within a period of two weeks from today as per the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3