Disposed¶36

Sri. Gopal T R v. the Range Forest Officer

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2025WP/15952/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 15952 of 2022 (GM-POLICE), decided 06-11-2025 by E.S. Indiresh, J. Mandamus sought to compel registration of police/forest/revenue complaints against private persons over alleged land interference; held dispute is civil in nature; petition disposed with liberty to approach competent court. Keywords: writ of mandamus, register complaint, civil nature dispute, schedule property interference, Hiriyur, Chitradurga.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; petitioner left free to approach the competent court for redressal of his grievances. ¶36

Sri. Gopal T R Vs the Range Forest Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44798 WP No. 15952 of 2022

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 15952 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GOPAL T R S/O THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O B L GOWDANAGARA HIRIYUR TOWN-577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

FOREST OFFICE HIRIYUR TOWN-577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR HIRIYUR TOWN-577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION HIRIYUR TOWN-577598.

¶17

MYAKLOD THIMMANNA S/O MULABAGILA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O THIRUMALANAGAR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44798 WP No. 15952 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HIRIYUR TALUK-577598.

¶22

KARIYAPPA S/O BHIMA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O THIRUMALANAGAR HIRIYUR TALUK-577598.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶26

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINTS DATED 12.04.2018 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-D, GIVEN TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 14.03.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ACCEPT THE COMPLAINT ANNEXURE-G, DATED 04.05.2022 AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:44798 WP No. 15952 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to register the complaint against the private respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

¶34

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶35

Having taken note of the averments made in the complaints at Annexures D, E and G, wherein it is alleged that the neighbouring land owners are interfering with the schedule property of the petitioner, the matter is of civil nature. In that view of the matter, since the matter is of civil nature, I am of the view that, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be accepted. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent court for redressal of his grievances.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶37

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶38

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. Gopal T R v. the Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gopal T R v. the Range Forest Officer

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

Prakash Gopalkrishna Hegde Vs the Union of India

Mahendra Labs Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Drugs Logistics

Government of Karnataka Vs National Comission for Schedule Castes

Sri Tarun Gawri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nigel P L Monteriro Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K. C. Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka