Dismissed¶71

Smt Nagarathna N B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025WP/24955/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition dismissed; public street versus private street; Section 2(31) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 definition; blocking of road/access by compound and fence by private respondents Nos.6-8; mandamus to Municipality/Tahasildar refused; certiorari against endorsement directing civil-court remedy refused; no relinquishment to or takeover by Malavalli Municipality; Annexure-C; liberty to file civil suit; observations not binding trial Court; Malavalli, Mandya District; single judge (R. Nataraj J.).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the civil Court in accordance with law, with observations in the order not to come in the way of the trial Court deciding any suit filed by the petitioners. ¶71

Smt Nagarathna N B Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.4 and 5 were bound to act on the petitioners' representations and remove the fence/construction put up by respondent Nos.6 to 8 blocking the road leading to the petitioners' properties. +2 more

¶48

Court's answer

Respondent No.5 cannot be compelled to take any action to restore the road for use by the petitioners; the only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the civil Court in accordance with law.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

There is no document to show that the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is a public road.

¶56

Key takeaways

The photograph produced along with the writ petition shows that the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is not a public road but appears to be a private street; it is therefore difficult to accept the claim that the access found in the photograph is a public street.ratio¶56
There is no evidence on record to establish that the private street seen in Annexure-C was either relinquished in favour of respondent No.5 or that respondent No.5 took control of the said stretch of land.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by five site owners of Keerthinagara New Extension, Malavalli, seeking mandamus to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to act on their representations dated 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025, and certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 31-05-2025 of the Chief Officer, Malavalli Municipality (respondent No.5) directing them to the civil Court, alleging that respondent Nos.6 to 8 had blocked by compound/fence the road giving access to their houses. HELD: (i) there was no document to show that the stretch claimed by the petitioners is a public road, and the photograph on record showed it to be a private street; (ii) applying the definition of 'public street' in Section 2(31) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, there was no evidence that the private street in Annexure-C was relinquished in favour of respondent No.5 or taken over by it; (iii) consequently respondent No.5 could not be compelled to restore the road, and the endorsement directing the petitioners to the civil Court was appropriate and did not merit interference. Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the civil Court; observations made not to bind the trial Court in any suit filed by the petitioners.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24955 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAGARATHNA N.B., W/O. M.D.CHUNCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 105A, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶9

SMT. K.VEDAVATHAMMA, W/O. MANCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.110.A KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430,

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. M.D.NAGESHWARI, W/O. BHOGA NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67C, MARENAHALLI LAYOUT, ALSO CALLED AS KEERTHINAGAR NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶12

SMT. SAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O. SHEKHAR, R/AT NO. 105, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶13

SRI. DODDAMUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

S/O. DODDAMUTHAIAH, R/AT NO. 107A, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY MS. BABY YADAV B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MARUTHI S., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR, MALAVALLI TALTUK, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶24

THE CHIEF OFFICER, MALAVALLI MUNICIPALITY, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶25

SRI. LINGAMANTU, S/O. MARILINGAIAH, AGE MAJOR, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430,

¶26

SRI. KRISHNA, S/O. MARILINGAIAH, AGE MAJOR, RETIRED VETERINARY INSPECTOR, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶30

SRI. GAVIGOWDA, S/O. JANGEGOWDA AGE MAJOR, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, KEERTHINAGARA, NEW EXTENSION, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; SRI M.S.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 08/10/2025 NOTICE TO R5, R6, R7 AND R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO-4 AND 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT NO-4 DATED 28-02-2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE REPRESENTATION FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT NO-5 DATED 03.03.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B-1 IN SO FOR IS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED BY REMOVING THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO-6 TO 8 ON PUBLIC ROAD AND PRAY FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT NO-5 DATED 31-05-2025 BEARING NO. ಪ�ಸಮ/ ಕಂ . �ಾ/

¶34

�.ಆ�/02/2025-26 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G IN SO FOR IN THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PRAY TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to consider their representation dated 28.02.2025. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement of the respondent No.5 dated 31.05.2025 bearing No.ಪ�ಸಮ/

¶42

ಕಂ . �ಾ/ �.ಆ�/02/2025-26.

¶43

The petitioners contend that between the year 1990 and 2000, a developer had developed certain sites in an agricultural land and the petitioners had purchased sites and they had constructed their houses, which are connected with electricity and are assessed to tax by the respondent No.5.

¶44

They contend that in the year 2023-24, the respondent Nos.6 to 8 constructed a compound by blocking the road which was the approach to their houses. The petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent No.4 on 28.02.2025 and a representation to the respondent No.5 on 03.03.2025 requesting them to remove the illegal construction

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

put up by the respondent Nos.6 to 8. The respondent No.5 issued an endorsement to the petitioners, directing them to approach the civil Court. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.6 to 8 have illegally laid a fence blocking the road leading to the properties of the petitioners and it being a public street, the respondent No.5 was bound to take action. They therefore contend that the impugned endorsement be set at nought and the respondent No.5 be directed to take immediate action to restore the road for usage by the general public.

¶49

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 submits that the road in question is not a public road and is not relinquished to the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 has not taken over the same. He therefore contends that this is a private dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 and therefore, the respondent No.5 rightly directed the petitioners to approach the civil Court.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 reiterated the above and submitted that there is no error in the respondent No.5 issuing the impugned endorsement.

¶54

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶55

counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶56

The petitioners claim that the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 have blocked a road, which leads to their houses. There is no document to show the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is a public road. The photograph produced along with the writ petition shows that the stretch of land claimed by the petitioners is not a public road but appears to be a private street. It is therefore difficult to accept the claim of the petitioners that the access found in the photograph is a public street. The definition of a public street as contained Section 2(31) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, reads as follows:

¶57

"(31) "Public street" means any street, road, square, court, alley, passage or riding-path over which

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the public have a right of way whether a thorough-fare on not and includes,

¶62

a) the road-way over any public bridge or causeway,

¶63

(b) the foot-way attached to any such street, public bridge or causeway, and

¶64

(c) the drains attached to any such street, public bridge or causeway, and the land, whether covered or not by any payment verandah or other structure which lies on either side of the roadway up to the boundaries of the adjacent property, whether that property is private property or property belonging to the Government or the Corporation;

¶65

There is no evidence on record to establish that the

¶66

private street seen in Annexure-C is either relinquished in favour of the respondent No.5 or that the respondent No.5 has taken control of the said stretch of land.

¶67

In that view of the matter, the respondent No.5 cannot be compelled to take any action to restore the road for being used by the petitioners. The only remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the civil Court in accordance with law. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.5 is therefore appropriate and does not merit interference.

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:39955 WP No. 24955 of 2025

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the civil Court in accordance with law. Any observations made in this petition shall not come in the way of the trial Court deciding the suit that may be filed by the petitioners.

¶72

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶73

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Nagarathna N B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagarathna N B 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

M/S Super Threads India Vs H L L Lifecare Limited

Sri M J Venkataramanappa Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies Cum Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Pavankumar G M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha a Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mohana H R Vs Sri Manjunatha H.S.