Sri. Prashanth Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21907 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. PRASHANTH NAIK S/O LATE GOPAL NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT. NAGANAVADACHIL HOUSE SAJIPA MUNNOOR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574231.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. UDAYA NAIK S/O. LATE GOPAL NAIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT NAGANAVADACHIL HOUSE SAJIPA MUNNOOR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574231.

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575001

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH SAJIPA MUNNOOR VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574231 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶18

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SAJIPA MUNNOOR VILLAGE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574231

¶19

SRI. B. ASHOK SHENOY S/O GOPALA KRISHNA SHENOY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.20-101/A, BOLANGADI HOUSE PANE MANGALORE VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574231

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶22

SRI. K. SHARANJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;

¶23

SRI. S.RAJASHEKHAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.06.2023 IN NO.SAMU/GRAPAM/62/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAJIPA MUNNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have challenged the notice bearing No. SaMu/GraPam/62/2023-24 dated 20.06.2023, issued by respondent No.4, whereby thet were directed to remove the obstruction allegedly put up by them on a portion of land claimed to be a public pathway by respondent No.5.

¶31

(i) The petitioners contend that they, along with their family members, are in possession and enjoyment of 44.04 acres of land in Sy.No.142/2A2C and 0.48 acres in Sy.No.142/13, both situated at Sajipa Munnoor Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which were granted by the State Government in favour of their predecessors. It is further contended that the father of respondent No.5 and certain other individuals, who claim to have purchased portions of land adjoining the aforesaid survey numbers, have constructed their residential houses thereon.

¶32

(ii) The petitioners claim that there exists a pathway leading to the main road outside the land granted to their predecessors, and therefore, no pathway ever existed within the land granted to them. They contend that this fact is evident

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

from the order of conversion dated 16.02.2013 and the sketch appended thereto. It is further stated that due to landslides and heavy rain, the pathway situated outside the granted land was blocked.

¶37

(iii) The respondent No.5 and other residents submitted a representation dated 17.02.2017 alleging that the petitioners and other family members had encroached upon a public road by putting up a fence, and requested that the obstruction be removed. Based on the complaint, respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 25.02.2017 directing the petitioners to remove the obstruction, failing which appropriate action would be initiated. The petitioners submitted their explanation dated 27.02.2017 denying the allegations and stated that the pathway was blocked due to landslides and heavy rain. They further stated that they had got their granted land surveyed and boundary stones fixed within their boundary, and that the allegation of encroachment into the public pathway was false.

¶38

(iv) The petitioners also claimed that they lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru SubDivision, seeking intervention and resolution of the dispute. It

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

is further stated that they had filed a petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, seeking protection of their interest and prevent removal of the encroachment alleged by respondent No.5 and others. They also contend that respondent No.5 and one Mr. Oswald Machado had filed O.S. No.299/2017 seeking a declaration that a 12-feet-wide passage passing through Sy.Nos.142/13, 142/2A2C, 142/2A1, 142/2A3 and 142/6 of Sajipa Munnoor Village was dedicated to the general public, and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from removing the alleged blockage. In the said suit, respondent No.5 and other plaintiffs had filed applications seeking ex parte temporary injunction and for appointment of a Court Commissioner etc.,

¶42

(v) The petitioners have contested the said suit and have also filed a counter-claim therein. A Court Commissioner was appointed in O.S. No.299/2017, who inspected the spot and submitted a report. The petitioners have filed their objections to the said report, and the matter is still pending consideration. When things stood thus, respondent No.5 filed

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

W.P. No.2721/2021 before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to implement a resolution No.135/2017-2018 dated 06.02.2018, contending that the Grama Panchayat was required to maintain the pathway as a public road in terms of the said resolution, and that no action had been taken so far to maintain the said road.

¶47

(iv) The petitioners claimed that they were not arrayed as parties in the said writ petition, and that the petitioners therein, in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4, were instrumental in obtaining an order dated 30.03.2023 in W.P. No.2721/2021, whereby this Court directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take suitable action. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1, through its Deputy Director, directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to take appropriate steps. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, also addressed a letter dated 20.05.2023 directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue a notice to remove the obstruction laid on the pathway. In pursuance of the same, the impugned notice dated 20.06.2023 came to be issued to the petitioners. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court challenging the said notice.

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are in possession of the property granted to their predecessors, and that it is respondent No.5 and others who have encroached upon their property. He submits that there is no public pathway, and that the pathway claimed by respondent No.5 and others lies within the property belonging to the petitioners. He further submits that respondent No.5 and others have filed O.S. No.299/2017, in which the petitioners have filed a counter-claim. It is therefore contended that unless the said civil suit is adjudicated, no direction can be issued to the petitioners to remove the stones placed by them for identifying their property. He also contends that a resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat on 06.02.2018 was challenged by the petitioners before the Taluk Panchayat by filing an appeal and that the said appeal was disposed off in view of the pendency of the suit between the parties before the civil court. He therefore submits that the issue is at large before the civil court and therefore, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not have taken any steps to direct the petitioners to remove the encroachment.

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(i) The petition is opposed by the respondent No.5 who has filed a statement of objections contending that the claim of the petitioners that the pathway lay outside the granted lands and was blocked due to the landslides and heavy rain is false. He also contends that it is the petitioners who have installed stones along the pathway and thereby obstructed the ingress and egress of respondent No.5 and others. He further submits that he has instituted O.S.No.299/2017, and that the issue in the said suit is whether the respondent No.5 and others are the owners of the suit property.

¶56

(ii) It is contended that the pathway claimed by the respondent No.5 has been in existence since a long time and is the only access to reach his property. He claims that the respondent No.5 and Mr. Oswald Machado are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.142/1BP8 measuring 0.25 cents and 142/1BP4 measuring 10 cents respectively and that RTC's of the said properties stand in their respective names. They have also constructed their respective houses in their properties and are in actual possession thereof.

¶57

9 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

(iii) It is further claimed that a 12-feet wide passage passing through Sy. Nos.142/13, 142/2A2C, 142/2A1, 142/2A3 and 142/6 is in existence from time immemorial and connects Melkar - Mudipu main road and Melkar- Manchi main road. The said pathway is used by the general public including respondent No.5 and others to reach the main road. It is stated that there are several houses, a Vyayama Shale, a college and other public institutions situated in the locality alongside the said road, and that the pathway is the only means of access to the properties of the respondent No.5 and other residents. It is also stated that there are streetlights along the said road and that the Grama Panchayat has constructed a culvert, thereby dedicating the pathway to public use.

¶61

(iv) Respondent No.5 contends that the petitioners are claiming a portion of this pathway as belonging to them and have obstructed its use by the respondent No.5 and others by placing stones. He further submits that though several applications are pending before the civil court in O.S.No.299/2017, the petitioners have taken law into their hands and have laid obstruction across the passage. It is under these circumstances, the respondent No.5 and others were

¶62

10 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

compelled to approach this Court as well as Grama Panchayat seeking removal of the said obstruction.

¶66

The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the some of the family members of the respondent No.5 are aged and infirm, and that except the passage claimed by them, there is no other access to reach their properties. He refers to various photographs produced along with the statement of objections to contend that the petitioners have laid obstacles on the said passage, thereby preventing respondent No.5 and his family members from using it. He further submits that pending disposal of the civil suit, the petitioners may be directed to remove the obstacles placed by them, subject to the result of the suit.

¶67

In order to resolve the imbroglio between the petitioners and respondent No.5 and to obtain first-hand information regarding the spot, this Court appointed a Court Commissioner, who has submitted her report, wherein she has stated that:

¶68

"The disputed spot started from the end of the

¶69

concreted road, at Navajeeevana Vayama shale. The

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

same starts at the house of Krishna Naik and Mrs. Sundari. I walked through the disputed road/pathway which measures about 1.06 mtrs. The parties showed the disputed pathway/road and along the way, their houses and other appurtenants. The parties along with the undersigned took note of all the developments/blocks along the disputed pathway which ultimately ends at the mouth of the house of Mrs. Prescilla and thereafter joins to the main road of Melkar to Panaji road. The photographs placed on record by the commissioner shows that they are some laterite bricks which are placed in the pathway.

¶74

The dispute as to whether the space claimed by respondent No.5 and others as a pathway or whether it lies within the property of the petitioners or is a public pathway are pending adjudication before the Civil Court in O.S. No.299/2017. The question regarding the petitioners’ title over the said space is also at large before the Civil Court. Since it is observed by the Court Commissioner that the said pathway is the only access leading to the houses of respondent No.5 and others, and that certain obstructions have been placed thereon

¶75

12 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

by the petitioners, who claim that the pathway lies within their property, it is considered appropriate that, pending disposal of the said suit, the petitioners shall remove the obstructions and maintain status-quo with respect to the said pathway until O.S. No.299/2017 is disposed of.

¶79

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the title of the respondent No.5 or others as well as the title of the petitioners to the space claimed to be the pathway by the respondent No.5 and others. This order is passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the report submitted by the Court Commissioner.

¶80

The writ petition stands disposed off on the above

¶81

terms. The petitioners shall take immediate steps to remove the obstruction placed in the space claimed to be a pathway by the respondent No.5 and others.

¶82

If the petitioners fail to remove the obstructions

¶83

within a period of one week from today, the Gram Panchayat, Sajipa-Munnoor, shall remove the laterite bricks laid by the petitioners and appropriate the same towards the expenses incurred for such removal. The Gram Panchayat shall also be at

¶84

13 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:41417 WP No. 21907 of 2023

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

liberty to take appropriate measures to recover the expenses from the petitioners in the event they fail to comply with the order of this Court. All contentions of the petitioners and respondent No.5 is kept open to be decided by civil court in O.S.No.299/2017

¶88

Sd/-

¶89

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶90

HJ

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri. Prashanth Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prashanth Naik 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

Dr.Girish K Nashi Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lingayat Education Society Vs Town Municipal Council

Smt Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Selvaraj v Vs Sri G Munivenkatappa

Smt. H R Shanthamma Vs the Chief Officer

Sri. R. Raghavendra Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka