Disposed¶55

Smt. Pallavi Murali v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025WP/37853/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 37853/2025 (KLR-RES), Karnataka HC, decided 18-12-2025, S Sunil Dutt Yadav J — Tahsildar's lake-encroachment eviction notices (Annexures-E/F, Case No. NCR/CR/42/2019-20) set aside on parity with W.P.No.30537/2025 (order dated 27.10.2025); liberty to proceed under Section 67 Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; survey as earlier observed; eviction only after proceedings conclude; contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Notices at Annexures-E and F set aside; respondents at liberty to follow the procedure under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or such other prescribed procedure, with survey conducted as observed in the order in W.P.No.30537/2025; any action for eviction only after the proceedings conclude; all contentions kept open. ¶55

Smt. Pallavi Murali Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices dated 05.11.2025 at Annexures-E and F, issued by the Tahsildar in Case No. NCR/CR/42/2019-20 on the premise of encroachment of lake land, should be quashed/set aside. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The notices at Annexures-E and F are set aside.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the asserted ground of parity, the present petition is disposed of while taking note of the observations made in the order in W.P.No.30537/2025 dated 27.10.2025.

¶49

Key takeaways

Respondents are at liberty to follow the procedure under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and such other procedure prescribed, taking note of the observations in the earlier order; the survey is also to be conducted as observed therein.ratio¶53
The question of taking any action for eviction would arise only after the proceedings are concluded.ratio¶54
All contentions of the parties are kept open.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J), writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by two residents of Ward No. 7, Busalakunte, Mulbagal, challenging notices dated 05.11.2025 (Annexures-E and F, Case No. NCR/CR/42/2019-20) issued by the Tahsildar, Mulbagal Taluk, on the premise of encroachment of lake land and threatening recovery of possession. On parity with the order dated 27.10.2025 in W.P.No.30537/2025 concerning the same lake, the petition was disposed of: the notices were set aside; the State was left at liberty to proceed under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or other prescribed procedure, with survey conducted as earlier observed; and no action for eviction was to be taken until such proceedings concluded. All contentions kept open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:54330 WP No. 37853 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 37853 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PALLAVI MURALI W/O MURALI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE

¶10

SHRI. MR MURALI S/O M. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.7, BUSALAKUNTE, MULBAGAL-563 131

¶13

(BY SRI. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE VIDHANA VEEDHI,

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54330 WP No. 37853 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR MULBGAL TALUK MULBAGAL-563 131

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND TO ISSUE: A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 05.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 TAHASILDAR TAHASILDAR ANNEXURE-E AND F IN CASE NO. NCR/CR/42/2019-20 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶28

Petitioners have sought for setting aside of the notices at Annexures-E and F.

¶29

In terms of the said notices, the authority has

¶30

taken a stand that they would recover possession from the petitioners on the premise that there has been

¶31

encroachment of lake land.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54330 WP No. 37853 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶35

with respect to the same lake in question as regards other

¶36

property owners who are similarly situated, this Court in W.P.No.30537/2025 has passed an order and on parity the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the observations made in the said order.

¶37

Perused the order passed in

¶38

W.P.No.30537/2025. The order dated 27.10.2025 reads as hereunder:

¶39

"The petitioners have called in question the validity of notices of eviction issued to them. Notices at Annexure-D series have been issued on the premise that there is encroachment of lake land. While observing the alleged encroachment, petitioners were asked to vacate and handover the vacant possession.

¶40

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of the Revenue Inspector which alleges encroachment of the lake land was without notice to the petitioners. Further submitted that in the event the State authorities are of the view that there has been encroachment of lake land or

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54330 WP No. 37853 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

public property, the authorities are required to take recourse to procedure under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act,1964') and proceed further.

¶44

3. In the light of the procedure prescribed under Section 67 of the Act, 1964 notices at Annexure-D to D-19 are set aside. RespondentState is at liberty to follow the procedure under Section 67 of the Act, 1964 or such other procedure prescribed under the law and proceed further.

¶45

4. Needless to state that the ascertainment of encroachment by survey requires to be done in the presence of petitioners and other affected parties and subsequent to such survey an enquiry as contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act may be initiated.

¶46

Accordingly, petition is disposed of in terms of the observations made above.

¶47

All contentions of the parties are kept open."

¶48

Taking note of the ground of parity as asserted

¶49

and the observations made above, present petition is also disposed of while taking note of the observations made in the said order extracted above. Accordingly, the notices at

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54330 WP No. 37853 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Annexures-E and F are set aside. Respondents are at

¶53

liberty to follow the procedure under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and such other procedure prescribed, taking note of the observations in the order made above. Needless to state that survey also

¶54

be conducted as observed above. The question of taking any action for eviction would arise only after the proceedings are concluded.

¶55

Accordingly, petition is disposed of . All

¶56

contentions are kept open.

¶57

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶58

Smt. Pallavi Murali v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pallavi Murali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Gurrappa Vs State of Karnataka

K N Veerabhadrachari Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.B.S.Raghupathy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dheeraj Muniraj Bjp Vs State of Karnataka

Arvind Patil Ex Mla Vs State of Karnataka

D Rangappa Vs State of Karnataka