- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:313-DB WA No. 229 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LINGAPPA K SUVARNA S/O KOOSAPPA SUVARNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. MR. LAKSHMAN K. SUVARNA, S/O KOOSAPPA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT RAMPRASAD HOUSE, KARAMBAR VILLAGE, BAJPE POST, MANGALURU - 574 142 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RAJALAKSHMI V MUNI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:313-DB WA No. 229 of 2025 2. THE THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 575 001. 3. JAGADEESH S/O LATE SESU MOILY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, KARAMBAR, MALAVOOR VILLAGE, POST BAJPE, MANGALURU – 574 412 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P.No.33812/2024 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT THEREIN AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:313-DB WA No. 229 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The instant appeal is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.33812/2024 instituted by the appellants/writ petitioners. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners had filed a writ petition challenging the eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar in respect of Poramboku (Government) land, which has been classified as a marginal road. Learned Single Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, vide impugned judgment and order, has held that in the earlier round of litigation instituted by the petitioners’ father, this Court has unequivocally held that the land where construction had been put up by the petitioners’ father was a Government land, meant for the public road. The finding recorded in the Writ Appeal No.5517/1997 has been extracted in paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:313-DB WA No. 229 of 2025 "It is seen from the orders passed by the authorities, viz., the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, that they have concurrently held that the land in question is a Government road poramboke, i.e., reserved for road, and any encroachment on the same is objectionable. It is also noticed that as per the rules for regularization of unauthorized occupation, such reserved land cannot be granted or the unauthorized occupation of such land cannot be regularized, as the same would affect the public at large for whose benefit the land has been reserved. Merely because the appellant has filed an application, there is no justification to quash the well considered concurrent orders passed by the 3 authorities below. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is justified in rejecting the writ petition.” 4. We put it to the learned counsel for the petitioners to show us any title documents establishing their ownership of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have applied for regularization of the site in their favour. However, till date, no decision has been taken. He also submitted, as on today, the petitioners do not possess any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:313-DB WA No. 229 of 2025 document to show that they are the owners, having title over the land. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that the issue is already decided in the earlier round of litigation, we do not find any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 6. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. The State Authorities are entitled to evict the petitioners forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending application does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2