- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11681 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 2. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER YALIYURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATHI Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110. 3. SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. N.M.BHASKAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-11-2025 PASSED IN GPA18/2022-23/1922 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by respondent no.1 in GPA18/2022- 23/1922 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition). 2. By virtue of the impugned order, respondent no.1 has directed removal of the encroachment committed by the petitioners herein on public property and limit their boundary to the measurement as contained in their deed of conveyance. Petitioners were arrayed as respondent nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings before respondent no.1. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀégÁeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-1993 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 269 gÀr ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ, 1. 2£Éà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ AiÀÄ°AiÀÄÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ vÉjUÉ ¤zsÀðgÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:286 D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:375, D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:312, D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:314 gÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀ G-zÀ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-02-1971 gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁj ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmï ºÁUÀÆ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:1174/1974-75 gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-06-1974 gÀ°è 131£Éà ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ MmÁÖgÉ G-zÀ:40 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢üÞ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 2. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ vÉjUÉ ¤zsÀðgÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:285 D¹ÛAiÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw£À ¸ÀASÉå:311 gÀ°è ¥À¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À:43 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:1238/1979-80 gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31-05- 1979 gÀ°è 132£Éà ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÁVgÀĪÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À:40 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 zÁR°¹ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄgɸÀ®Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢üÞ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. 3. ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ºÁUÀÆ 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À §½ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®/£ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ CgÀªÀgÀªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀégÁeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ-1993 ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 72(2) gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ©Ã¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄð£À CqÉvÀqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MvÀÄÛªÀj vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¸À®Ä UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå:131 gÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå:132 gÀ zÀQëtQÌgÀĪÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 16 (ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄ) Cr CUÀ®ªÀżÀî PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹, ¸ÀzÀj PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ §¼ÀPÉUÉ ªÀÄÄPÀÛªÁVj¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁj gÀªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹, ªÉÄîä£À« «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¹zÉ." 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that a complaint was made against the petitioners by respondent no.3 alleging that they have encroached upon a public property (conservancy). After conducting the necessary proceedings, respondent no.1 based upon the pleadings and the spot inspection report has come to the conclusion that petitioners herein have indeed encroached upon conservancy lane in Yeliyuru village, which is a Government property and has ordered removal of the said encroachment. I do not see any error in the said case. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 4. However, petitioners contend that finding of fact about encroachment by the petitioners by respondent no.1 in the impugned order is erroneous. He further contends that it is not the petitioners who have encroached upon the conservancy, but it is respondent no.3 herself, at whose instance proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners. 5. Both the counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and also for respondent no.3 together deny the statement made by the petitioners and they submit that, it is the petitioners who have encroached upon the public property and they justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide as to the disputed question of facts and if the petitioners are of the opinion that they have not encroached upon any property as alleged in the impugned order, they are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law. Further, it is noticed the impugned order states that the boundary of the petitioners herein has to be limited as per their title deeds in respect of their properties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026 7. For the aforementioned reasons, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to enforce their rights over their properties in accordance with law before the Civil Court, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11