Sri Jitesh B P Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. RACHITHA B.P. W/O VIVAK NIRANJAN RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT B-308, MYTHRI ENCLAVE, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD, NEAR SARASWATHI THEATER, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU - 560 009.

¶12

(BY SRI. M.C.ROSHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VIDHANSOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:18828 WP No. 15942 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE THASILDAR, BANNIMANTAP MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT -571 602.

¶20

REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI MYSURU - 571 602.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA )

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 13.05.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE -A BEARING NO. TAHMYSLNDOLND/913/2025; DIRECT TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE NATURE OF PROHIBITION , PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FROM ILLEGAL DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTIES AND DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONERS FROM THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 77/1 AND 77/11 SHANDHANA VILLAGE, KLASABA HOBLI, MYSURU.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:18828 WP No. 15942 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶31

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the Notification dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2 to remove the encroachments if any in land bearing Sy.No.116 and 119 of Shyadanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.72/1 (new No.72/11) and the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned Notification at Annexure-A to remove the encroachment if any in Sy.No.116 and 119 of Shyadanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners herein have made a representation to respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H and same is yet to be considered by respondent No.2 and therefore

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18828 WP No. 15942 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

sought for interference of this Court and to restrain the respondent - authorities from interfering with the land belonging to the petitioners.

¶37

Per contra Sri. Siddarth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, by referring to the Notification dated 13.05.2025 contended that, the said Notification is issued in respect of the Sy.No.116 and 119 of of Shyadanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District and therefore the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable since the petitioners have no legal right in respect of aforementioned survey Numbers and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the Notification dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure-A), wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 has issued the Notification to remove the encroachments in Sy.No.116 and 119 of of Shyadanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District stating that the land is belonging to the Government - kharab land, being encroached by the respective

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18828 WP No. 15942 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

persons. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the petitioners herein are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No. Sy.No.72/1 (new No.72/11) measuring 1 acre 27.04 guntas sitaute at Shyadanahalli Village, respondent No.2 is restrained from interfering with respect to the land belonging to the petitioners i.e. land bearing Sy.No.72/1 (new No.72/11), however, there is no impediment for the second respondent - Tahsildar to remove the encroachments if any in Sy.No.116 and 119 of Shyadanahalli Village, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru District, in accordance with law as per the Notification produced at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition.

¶42

It is also made clear that respondent No.2 shall consider the representation dated 15.05.2025(Annexure-H) expeditiously within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶43

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶45

sac

¶46

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri Jitesh B P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jitesh B P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt J C Poornima Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Shanthappa Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh Murthy R Vs the Secretary

Ramaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka