- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8994-DB WA No. 1665 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.KULALA GUNDA BRAHMARYA (KUMBARARA) SANGHA REGISTRATI0N NO S 691/49-50 #77, K 38, D BANUMAIAH ROAD K R MOHALLA, MYSORE 570024 REP BY ITS SECRETARY SRI T L NAGARAJU NO 210, 2ND B MAIN ROAD GOKULAM 2ND STAGAE, MYSORE 570002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI H K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT MS BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2. THE MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT REP BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8994-DB WA No. 1665 of 2025 3. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MYSORE 570001 4. KULALA GUNDA BRAHMARYA KUMBAR SANGHA @ MYSORE REG NO 691/49-50 NO 54/K 38 D BANUMAIAH ROAD MYSORE REP BY PRESIDENT SRI H S PRAKASH 5. KUMBARA SARVAJANIKA VIDYARTHI NILAYLA TRUST REP BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT SRI P GOVINDU AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTASHETTY #C-1, NEW KANTAHARAJ URS ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE 570023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH., AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS: SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6902/2013, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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:8994-DB WA No. 1665 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6902/2013 (LB-RES), which was filed by the 5th respondent herein. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner had filed the writ petition praying to quash the order dated 18.12.2012 issued by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (for short 'the MUDA'). whereby the civic amenity site allotted on 24.06.1987 was transferred to the petitioner on 29.09.1987. But this transfer was cancelled, restoring the allotment to the original allottee i.e., respondent No.5. 4. The allottee is a Society registered in the year 1949- 50 bearing Registration No.691/1949-50. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 had filed writ petition - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8994-DB WA No. 1665 of 2025 No.44354/2011 arraying respondent No.5 in the writ petition. In the said writ petition, challenge was made to the direction of MUDA to hand over possession of the subject property to respondent No.5. The respondent No.5/Society was registered in the year 2003–2004, whereas the petitioner's Society was registered in the year 1949–1950 respectively. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the MUDA decision dated 18.12.2012 transferring the civic amenity site in favour of respondent No.5 untenable and therefore, the decision dated 18.12.2012, was set aside. 6. The learned Single Judge has also noted that it appears that there is inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 and that dispute can be decided in civil proceedings, but not in the writ Court. 7. We have perused the impugned judgment and order. The inter se dispute between the two societies cannot be decided by this Court in public law remedy under Article - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8994-DB WA No. 1665 of 2025 226 of the Constitution of India. But having regard to the fact that the allotment of the site was made in respect of the petitioner, in the year 1987 and the MUDA vide order dated 18.12.2012, transferred the site in favour of the respondent No. 5. We find that the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2024 does not require an interference. We therefore, dismiss this writ appeal. 8. Parties are left to take appropriate proceedings of inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5. 9. In view of dismissal of this appeal, pending interim applications if any, do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NG CT:SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8