Disposed¶56

Sri v. Janardhan v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025WP/17890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:33268; WP No. 17890 of 2025 (GM-RES); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; B M Shyam Prasad J (single bench); village road VR14 / VR13; DRRP map Annexure-E; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; Right to Information Act, 2005 endorsement by 7th respondent; Panchayat Raj Engineering Department; Anthapura Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District; obstruction to access; drainage gutters; private respondents 9 to 12; brick kiln / land diversion; pending suit O.S. No.255/2021; petition disposed of with liberty.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief on merits; the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions, with liberty to the petitioner to take advantage of any contradiction in the official communications. ¶56

Sri v Janardhan Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on merits; the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions, with liberty to the petitioner to take advantage of any contradiction in the official communications.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 6 and 7 are bound to carry out their statutory duty to maintain the village road VR14 (described as authenticated government village road VR13/VR14 in the DRRP map at Annexure-E) running from its connection to SH-84 through the lands of respondents 9 to 12, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue for its free movement, including prevention of respondents 9 to 12 closing the drainage gutters on either side of the road. +1 more

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The nature of the road as asserted by the petitioner is a matter pending consideration in the pending suit O.S. No.255/2021, and the question in that regard must be decided in the light of the other correspondences caused by the authorities.

¶56

Key takeaways

The petitioner must be at liberty to take advantage if there is any contradiction in the authorities' communications, and subject to all just exceptions the petition stands disposed of.obiter¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a landowner of Malamachakunte Village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 6 and 7 (Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department) to carry out their statutory duty to maintain village road VR14 (described as authenticated government village road VR13/VR14 in the DRRP map at Annexure-E) running from its connection to SH-84 through Sy.Nos.19, 17/1, 17/2 and 18 of Anthapura Village, and to prevent respondents 9 to 12 from closing the drainage gutters on either side of the road. The Court observed that the nature of the road as asserted by the petitioner is already a matter pending consideration in his suit O.S. No.255/2021 on the file of the jurisdictional Court, that the question must be decided in the light of the other correspondences caused by the authorities, and that the petitioner may take advantage of any contradiction in such communications. Subject to all just exceptions, the petition was disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 17890 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V JANARDHAN S/O G. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. RESIDENT OF KUNDURU VILLAGE. DEVARAYAPATNA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572104.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. Y P VIJAYA VASANTHA KUMARI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRASENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND

¶16

PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GRAMINA RASTHE DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (KRRDA), GRAMINA ABHIVRUDDI BHAVANA,

¶18

3^RD FLOOR, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560009.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA GRAMINA RASTHE DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION (KRRDA) ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560009.

¶23

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO),-ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, TUMKUR-572101.

¶24

THE CHIEF ENGINEER RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT.

¶25

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TUMKUR DIVISION OFFICE, TUMKUR-572101.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TUMKUR DISTRICT, GUBBI SUB-DIVISION, GUBBI-572216.

¶27

THE TAHSILDAR GUBBI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572117.

¶28

DODDAIAH

¶29

S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MALAMACHANAGUNTE, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 117.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI. GIRIYAPPA

¶34

S/O SANNA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. RESIDING AT THOTADAMANE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 17/1, ANTHAPURA, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 117.

¶35

SRI. LOKESH S/O SANNA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTADAMANE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.17/2, ANTHAPURA, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 117.

¶36

SRI. MUNIR AHAMAD SHERIFF S/O LATE SULTHAN AHAMAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAMANE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 17, ANTHAPURA, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 117.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R8)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶39

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE 6^TH AND 7^TH RESPONDENTS TO CARRY OUT THEIR STATURORY DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE VILLAGE ROAD

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

VR14 STARTING FROM ITS CONNECTION TO SH-84 ON THE WESTERN SIDE AND RUNNING TOWARDS EASTERN SIDE THROUGH THE LANDS OF THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 BEARING SY.NO.19, 17/1, 17/2 AND 18 OF ANTHAPURA VILLAGE LEADING TO ANUPANAKUNTE ROAD THROUGH HUCHA RANGAPPANAHATTI IS DESCRIBED AS AN AUTHENTICATED GOVERNMENT VILLAGE ROAD VR13 PRESENTLY VR14 IN THE DRRP MAP PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E BY MAKING IT CLEAR FOR THE FREE MOVEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AND BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MAMDAMUS; II) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 TO PREVENT THE ILLEGAL ACTS OF THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 FROM CLOSING THE DRAINAGE GUTTERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE VILLAGE ROAD VR14 BY TAKING STRINGENT ACTION AGAINST THEM AS PER LAW.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

The petitioner owns certain lands in Malamachakunte Village, Cheluru Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District, and is aggrieved by the information that is provided by the seventh respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner asserts that his land is diverted from agricultural to nonagricultural purposes viz., for a brick kiln and that the private respondents dispute the existence of an access. Insofar as the present petition, the petitioner asserts that the Endorsement is contrary to the earlier communications as also the Village Map.

¶51

Crucially, the petitioner himself states in the memorandum of the petition that he has filed a suit against the respondents in O.S. No.255/2021 on the file of the jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief as against obstruction to the use of such road and that

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:33268 WP No. 17890 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

suit is pending consideration. Sri Vijaya Vasantha Kumari Y P, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shamanth Naik, a learned High Court Government Pleader, who is called upon to accept notice for the first to eighth respondents, are heard.

¶56

This Court must observe that the nature of the road as asserted by the petitioner is a matter that is pending consideration in the aforesaid suit, and the question in that regard must be decided in the light of the other correspondences that is caused by the authorities. The petitioner must also be at liberty to take advantage if there is any contradiction in such communication. Therefore, subject to all just exceptions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶57

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Sri v. Janardhan v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Janardhan 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

Ms. X Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rakshith B Vs Union of India

Smt. Shwetha S R Vs the State of Karnataka

Yahavantha S Vs Hindustal Petroleum Corproation Limited

Mr. Santhosh. O. G. Vs the Union of India

Sri. J Viswanatha Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka