- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6356 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI KANTHARAJ GUPTA S/O LATE SANJEEVASHETTY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 73 JLB ROAD, HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER M.S SANJAY S/O LATE SUGANDARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.1405/2, JLB ROAD, HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S NARAYAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHEMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD (CESC) ( A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 29, VIJAYANAGAR 2nd STAGE, HINAKAL, MYSORE - 570 017. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EI) CHEMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC) MYSORE, O AND M CESC, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE CESC HUNSUR - 571 105. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) CHEMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICIT SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (CESC) HUNSUR SUB DIVISION - HUNSURU, O AND M SUB DIVISION CESC, HUNSUR - 571 105. 4. COMMISSONER / CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HUNSUR - 571 105. 5. SADIQ IQBAL S/O LATE GULAM DASTHAGIR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1282/2 J L B ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT 6. NAZEER AMZAD S/O H M AFTHAF AHAMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO1282/1, J L B ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN - 571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K N PRAVEEN KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 31.01.2023 AT ANNX-M PASSED BY R-3 WITH RESPECT TO REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-M) passed by respondent No.3 and further direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action on the representation submitted by the petitioner for removal of the underground 'UG cable' allegedly laid in the petitioner's property. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing Hunsur Municipal Katha No.510/438/1282/3 having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2014 and the revenue records are stated to be standing in his name. It is the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 case of the petitioner that after putting up construction in the vacant space, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have illegally laid underground cable in the said portion without consent. The petitioner has made several representations to the respondent - authorities including Annexures-D, E and F seeking removal of the said cable. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.36191/2016, wherein a direction was issued to the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner's representation. 3. It is stated that despite such direction, no effective action was taken. Subsequently, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-M), holding that the dispute involves ownership, common passage and relegating the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, the authorities fail to comply with the earlier - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 direction of this Court and that the issue pertains only for removal of UG cable does not involve any title dispute and the action of respondent No.3 is a violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The disputed portion is a common passage of 6 feet and the petitioner has no exclusive right over it. The UG cable is laid in exercise of inventory/common usage right. The dispute involves title and right to the passage which requires adjudication by a competent Civil Court and that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not approached this Court with clean hands. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 7. From the material on record it indicates that the portion in question is claimed as a common passage by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 respondent Nos.5 and 6. The dispute is not a simple case of unauthorised lying of cable but involves serious questions relating to ownership, possession and right of a user of the disputed portion. The representation produced at Annexures-D, E and F would indicate that the petitioner has been agitating the issues before various authorities. However, the same also reflects that there exists a long standing and continuing dispute between the parties regarding the nature and usage of the land. 8. It is well settled principle of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate disputed questions of fact, particularly when such dispute require examination of title documents, evidence and determination of its mandatory rights. Insofar as the contention regarding non-compliance of the order passed in W.P.No.36191/2016 is concerned, the said order only directed the authorities to consider the representation and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. The impugned order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18548 WP No. 6356 of 2023 31.01.2023 indicates that the authorities had considered the matter and has come to the conclusion that the dispute involves questions of ownership and common passage and has rightly relegated the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. The said approach cannot be faulted with. The appropriate remedy to the petitioner, if so advised, is to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration and consequential relief. 9. In view of that matter, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35