Nanja Raju Vs Sri. Manche Gowda

SRI Y S NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH AGED 49 YEARS 1 TO 4 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF YADAVANE VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572111.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR - 572101.

¶26

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK - 572111 KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶27

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CAUVERI AND HEMAVATHI RIVER PROJECT THURUVEKERE

¶28

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERI AND HEMAVATHI RIVER PROJECT THURUVEKERE TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111.

¶33

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERI AND HEMAVATHI RIVER PROJECT THURUVEKERE TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R1, R4, R7, R9 ARE SERVED;

¶36

VIDE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 H/S)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. CR 1169/1183/1215/22-23 DATED 25.9.23 ISSUED BY R6 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE AS THE REASONS ASSIGNED THERE IN ARE OPPOSED TO FACTS AND LAW; TO DIRECT THE R5 AND R6 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER PASSED AS PER ANNEXURE-C BY R5 IN CASE NO. MAG(A)13/2022-23 DATED 14.10.22 IN TRUE SPIRIT BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/DIRECTION/ORDER OF LIKE NATURE WHICH THE COURT MAY DEEM FIT PROPER.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioners are the residents of Yadavani Village, Amruthuru Hobli, Tumkur District, and they are aggrieved by the sixth respondent’s Endorsement dated 25.09.2023 [ Annexure-A ]. The sixth respondent [ the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk] , referring to the earlier writ proceedings in W.P.No.1142/2023, has informed the petitioners that the path running in Survey Nos. 67, 87 and 93 of Yadavani village, Amruthuru Hobli, Kunigal Taluk though a road in use [‘ the Road ’] is not shown in the Village Map and therefore no measures can be taken for removal of the encroachments. This Court, in the present writ petition, has directed the respondents not to interfere

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

with the petitioners' use of the Road and that this interim order is continued.

¶49

Sri M.T. Nanaiah, the learned

¶50

Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the sixth respondent is not justified in opining that the Road is only a road-in-use and not a Government Road because the respondents, between themselves, have spent public exchequer in completing almost 80% of the Road and that this Court in WP No. 1142/2023 has directed the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar to remove encroachment. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners' grievance could be addressed if this Court directs the respondents to complete the remaining widening work and that such a direction would help not just the petitioners, who are residents of Yadavani village, but also others.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Ms. Navya Shekar, the learned

¶55

Additional Government Advocate, seeks leave to place on record a Report from the sixth respondent and the other documents to justify the statement in the impugned endorsement. The learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that, after the recent inspection of the property and survey records, it is verified that the Road is part of a cultivable land held by private persons and any direction by this Court would be an imposition impeding the rights of those owners.

¶56

considered for the interference that could be. The petitioners have indeed filed a petition in W.P. No. 1142/2023 alleging encroachment of a 'public road' , with the officers of the Kaveri and Hemavati River Projects stating that the encroachments on this Road are removed. This Court has ultimately disposed of this petition on 19.07.2023 directing the

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the sixth respondent [ the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk ] to take steps in law to remove encroachments on a public road.

¶61

Crucially thereafter, the petitioners have filed a contempt application alleging that the Authorities are disobeying this Court’s order in W.P.No.1142/2023. In the contempt proceedings, the respondents have placed on record a copy of the impugned Endorsement dated 25.09.2023, and the proceeding is closed with liberty to challenge the Endorsement. This Court must observe that the petitioners in filing the writ petition in WP No. 1142/2023 have relied upon the Assistant

¶62

Commissioner's order dated 14.10.2022.

¶63

However, the Assistant

¶64

Commissioner's order dated 14.10.2022, as pointed out by Ms. Navya Shekhar, is because the sixth

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

respondent [ the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk ], despite specific direction, had not placed on record any Report about the existence of the road or the nature thereof and the present Endorsement is after verification and based on certain records. The essential question is whether the Road is a public road or a private road in existence from decades [ may be over multiple decades as well] . In the circumstances discussed above, this Court cannot conclusively decide on this question as factual aspects will have to be examined.

¶69

At this stage, Sri M.T. Nanaiah

¶70

points out that under the erstwhile Criminal Code [ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ] it was open to the District Magistrate [ or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate ] to order removal of obstructions on a public road on receiving a report from a Police Officer or otherwise and that any decision in such proceedings could not be called in

¶71

9 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:29816 WP No. 5047 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

question in a civil Court. This Court opines that if it is open to the petitioners to demonstrate that the Road in question is not just a road-in-use running through cultivable lands but a public road, they must be at liberty to approach the concerned invoking the jurisdiction under the present regime. Hence, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

With liberty as aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of leaving open all questions to be considered in the proceedings. It is needless to observe that the sixth respondent [ the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk ] must ensure that the access that is now available is not closed because of the disposal of this petition lest the petitioners’ rights are rendered infructuous.

¶77

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶78

NV

Nanja Raju v. Sri. Manche Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanja Raju v. Sri. Manche Gowda

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

Smt. Nirupama. K. C. Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Nain Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M B Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi Vs the State of Karnataka

R Devashritha (Since Deceased on 07.08.2018) by His Legal Representatives D Sumithra Vs N/S Chandra Exhibitors