Sri Shrinivas P D Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Shrinivas P D Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of mandamus effectuated by direction to respondent No.3 (Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike) to dismantle the compound wall shown in Annexures-P to P3 within two weeks and permit the petitioner access to his property; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 could block the petitioner's access to its admittedly held 25 guntas within Sy.No.220/6 by erecting a compound wall cutting off the entrance from the main road, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing its demolition.

Court's answer

Since the survey records indicate that the petitioner's 25 guntas fall within the larger Sy.No.220/6 belonging to respondent No.3, the petitioner had a right of access to the land, which existed until the compound wall was constructed.

Ratio / Principle

The photographs at Annexures-P to P3, showing a freshly put up compound wall covering the area between the earlier erected compound wall, clearly establish that respondent No.3 completely blocked the access to the petitioner's land.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 is directed to dismantle the compound wall erected, as indicated in the Annexures-P to P3 photographs, within a period of two weeks, and permit the petitioner to have access to his property.ratio¶47
Title over the land between the petitioner's property and the road is expressly left open: if respondent No.3 considers itself owner of that property, it is entitled to initiate proceedings before the appropriate Forum and establish its right.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.17019 of 2024 (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (N S Sanjay Gowda, J.), order dated 17 January 2025 — Mandamus for removal of obstructing compound wall / right of access. Seven petitioners, admittedly holding 25 guntas within Sy.No.220/6 (the larger area whereof belongs to respondent No.3, the Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike), complained that respondent No.3 erected a new compound wall after removing an existing gate, cutting off their access from the main road to their land. Relying on a joint survey sketch (Annexure-L) placing the petitioner's 25 guntas within the larger Sy.No.220/6, a survey sketch (Annexure-N) indicating possession over the south of Sy.No.220/6 and the existence of a road, and photographs (Annexures-P to P3) of a freshly put up wall covering the area between the earlier erected compound wall, the Court held that the survey records established the petitioner's right of access, which existed until the compound wall was constructed. Respondent No.3 was directed to dismantle the compound wall, as indicated in Annexures-P to P3, within two weeks and permit access. If respondent No.3 claimed ownership of the property between the petitioner's property and the road, it was left free to initiate proceedings before the appropriate Forum to establish its right — the question of title being expressly left open. Writ Petition allowed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 17019 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHRINIVAS P D S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O #291 5tH MAIN, 13th CROSS, GOKULAM 2^nd STAGE, VANI VILAS MOHALA, MYSORE 570002.

SMT. PUTTATAYAMMA W/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O #2462/2, 3rd MAIN, 4th CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE 570012.

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. D KEMPAMMA W/O LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O #2462/2, 3rd MAIN , 4th CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, JAYALAKSHMI PURAM, MYSORE 570012.

SMT. GAYATHRI P D W/O SURESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 2344, 5tH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE 570012.

SMT. S SUSHEELA W/O LATE P D CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O #2344, 5^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGARA

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE 570012

SMT. PAVITHRA C W/O VIJAY M AGED 40 YEARS, R/O #2344, 5th MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE 570012.

SMT. MAMATA C D/O LATE P D CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 2462/2, 3^rd MAIN 4^th CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSORE 570012

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VEDANTH VIJAYAN., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. G.K.BHAVANA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT GIRIBHOVIPALYA SIDDHARTA NAGAR, MYSORE 570011.

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SAIYYAJIRAO ROAD, MYSORE.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MYSORE CITY WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, 2nd FLOOR, P-4, 10tH MAIN ROAD, 3rd CROSS,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE 570009

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI.V., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DIRECTING THEM TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL COMPOUND WALL WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED BLOCKING THE ENTRANCE FROM THE MAIN ROAD INTO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct respondent No.3 to demolish the illegal compound wall, which was constructed and blocks the entrance from the main road to the property of the petitioner, which is admittedly the property bearing Sy.No.220/6 measuring 25 guntas.

The petitioner places reliance on a joint survey sketch vide Annexure-L, which indicates that the holding of the petitioner to an extent of 25 guntas

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

i.e., the aforementioned land falls within the larger

area of Sy.No.220/6 which belongs to the contesting respondent No.3.

In fact, in Annexure-L, it is stated as follows-

“5. j.¸À.£ÀA.220/6 ºÁUÀÆ ¯ÁUÀÄ »¸ÉìUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁdÄ »£ÀPÀ¯ï UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀAUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹ MmÁÖV ºÁ° d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¹ÜwAiÀÄAvÉ PÁA¥ËAqï ¤«Äð¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. RTCzÁgÀgÀ zÀÄvÀ¹Û «¹ÛÃtðªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ PÁA¥ËAqï ¤«ÄðvÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀzÉÆÃ¼ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ MvÀÄÛªÀj

vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä SÁ¸ÀVAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ [RTCzÁgÀgÀÄ]”

The case of the petitioner is also that as per the survey sketch, which is produced as Annexure-N, indicates the possession of the petitioner over the south of Sy.No.220/6 which belongs to the petitioner and it also indicates an existence of a road. The petitioner contends that despite this admitted possession of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has erected a new compound wall by removing the gate that was in existence, thereby cutting off the access

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

completely to the 25 guntas of the land of the petitioner.

The petitioner places reliance on the photographs at Annexures-P to P3, which also indicates that there is a freshly put up compound wall and which covers the area between the earlier erected compound wall. This would, therefore, clearly establish that respondent No.3 had, by putting up the compound wall, completely blocked the access to the petitioner’s land.

In light of the fact that the survey records indicates that Sy.No.220/6 measuring 25 guntas belongs to the petitioner and falls within the larger area which belongs to respondent No.3, it is obvious that the petitioner would have a right of access to this particular land and he did have an access until the compound wall was constructed.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1928 WP No. 17019 of 2024

I am, therefore, of the view that it would be necessary to direct respondent No.3 to dismantle the compound wall which has been erected, as indicated in Annexures-P to P3, photographs, within a period of two weeks, and permit the petitioner to have access to his property.

If respondent No.3 is of the view that they own the property between the petitioner’s property and the road, they are entitled to initiate proceedings before the appropriate Forum and establish their right.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is allowed.

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

HNM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19