Dismissed¶50

Mr. Sharanappagouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WP/34675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (DB, CJ N. V. Anjaria with K. V. Aravind J.) dismisses PIL (WP No. 34675 of 2024, GM-RES, decided 08.04.2025) by Koppal residents seeking removal of encroachments on layout land allegedly relinquished/earmarked for public roads (Survey Nos. 21/1, 21/8, 21/4, 21/2, 21/9); dismissed for want of cogent material and necessary details; respondents included State of Karnataka (Urban Development), Directorate of Municipal Administration and Chief Officer, Bhagyanagar Town Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Beyond the bare averment of relinquishment of the land in favour of the respondent-authorities, no cogent material was forthcoming on record to substantiate the grievance; the xerox copies produced (Annexure-B) afforded no substantiation without authentic documents. ¶43

Mr. Sharanappagouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 34675 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. SHARANAPPAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. BASANAGOUDA TANAKANAKAL, R/O. 2^ND WARD, NEAR MALLESHWARA TEMPLE, BEVOOR, KOPPAL-583237. PH: 9663952077. AADHAAR 2580-7193-2781.

¶12

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. VASANTAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O. SHANKAR GOUDA MALIPATIL, R/O. No. 2/72798, MADNUR, MUDINUR, KOPPAL-583230. PH: 9844096404. AAHAAR 9039-7542-2789.

¶14

MR. PARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. YALLAPPA MADIVALAR, R/O. KUMBAR ONI, HALAPETE, MUDHOL, KOPPAL 583230. PH: 8722757679. AADHAAR 9542-0494-8718.

¶15

MR. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶17

S/O. HANUMANTAPPA, R/O. MANGALAPUR, NEAR VIDYA SARASWATI SCHOOL, NANDI NAGAR, KOPPAL-593231. PH: 9845767258. AADHAAR 8656-1401-8836

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9^TH FLOOR AND 10^TH FLOOR, VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560001.

¶22

CHIEF OFFICER, BHAGYANAGAR TOWN PANCHAYAT, O/A. NEAR MAHATMA GANDHI CIRCLE, BHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL TALUK AND DIST - 583238

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO REMOVE ALL ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENTS ON THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, SPECIFICALLY THE PORTIONS OF LAND EARMARKED FOR PUBLIC ROAD DEVELOPMENT IN ITEM Nos-1 AND 2 SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND RESTORE THE SAME FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE AS PUBLIC ROADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED LAYOUT PLANS AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶32

Heard learned advocate Mr. Krishna S. Vyas, who appeared through video conferencing for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar who appeared to assist the court upon service of the copy of the petition in advance.

¶33

The petitioners who claim to be the residents of Koppal, further projecting themselves to be actively involved in the social welfare activities and asserting them to be public spirited person, have filed this petition, styling it as public interest petition.

¶34

As per the case of the petitioner, the subject land out of which the portions were relinquished for public purpose is in the course of the development of the property. The lands involved are (i) Item No.1 Schedule Property: Land bearing Survey Nos.21/1, 21/8 and 21/4, measuring a total extent of 4 acres, located in Koppal, Karnataka. (ii) Item No.2 Schedule Property: Land bearing

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶36

Survey Nos.21/2 and 21/9, measuring a total extent of 2 acres, located in Koppal, Karnataka.

¶37

3.1 Both the above properties were developed as residential layouts by the respective owners after obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authorities. As per the case, the layout plans indicated the specific portions of the schedule property were earmarked for road development on the western and eastern boundaries for the purpose of providing connectivity and access to the public.

¶38

3.2 It was further stated that during the process of granting approval, certain portions of land were earmarked as public roads in the schedule property and were relinquished in favour of the respondent-department. It is the case that despite this relinquishment, certain antisocial elements have unlawfully encroached upon the areas and unauthorised structures are constructed.

¶39

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that despite several representations were made to the authorities urging them to take necessary steps to remove the encroachment, nothing has yielded.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶41

Thereafter and that the respondent-authorities have failed to take any action.

¶42

3.4 In this light, the prayer is made to direct the respondentauthorities to take immediate and effective steps to remove illegal encroachment in the property in question, specifically the portions of land earmarked for public road development. Next prayer is made to direct the respondents to take necessary measures to prevent the further encroachments on the property and other public lands in the jurisdiction, including by establishing monitoring mechanisms etc., deserves to be prevented and it is to be ensured that encroachment does not take place.

¶43

The whole plank of grievance is that on the part of the property was relinquished in favour of the respondent-authorities to be used as common order, however, in this regard, except bare averment that there is a relinquishment, no cogent material has been forthcoming on record and learned advocate was queried about the preferred to be made at Annexure-B. It is difficult to find any substantiation from the xerox copy of these documents without any authentic document.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:14894-DB WP No. 34675 of 2024

¶46