Gurumurthy H P Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Gurumurthy H P Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing respondent No.2 (Land Grant Committee for Regularisation of Un Authorised Cultivation) to consider the petitioner's regularisation application and pass appropriate orders; status quo to be maintained until such decision; pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the memorandum dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A) addressed to the PDO directing steps towards the petitioner's eviction from Sy.No.2 of Handithavalli village should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's application for regularisation of the unauthorised land was made on 11.02.2019, i.e., before the impugned order dated 13.05.2019, as evidenced by Annexure-B.

Key takeaways

It is appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application for regularisation and pass appropriate orders.ratio¶31
Until respondent No.2 takes a decision on the application, status quo as it exists shall be maintained.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Justice N S Sanjay Gowda) disposed of W.P. No. 7859 of 2020 (LB-RES) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner faced a memorandum dated 13.05.2019 (Annexure-A) whereby the Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat directed the Panchayat Development Officer to conduct a spot inspection and evict unauthorised occupants from Sy.No.2 of Handithavalli village, Ravandur Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk. Since the petitioner had already applied on 11.02.2019 (Annexure-B) for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation, and that application remained unconsidered when the eviction memorandum issued, the Court directed respondent No.2 (Land Grant Committee for Regularisation of Un Authorised Cultivation) to consider the application and pass appropriate orders, and ordered that status quo be maintained until such decision. The Court did not itself quash the memorandum; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2020 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

GURUMURTHY H P S/O. LATE. PUTTASWAMY SHETTY, R/AT HANDITAVAHALLI VILLAGE, RAVANDOORU HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 108.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UN AUTHORISED CULTIVATION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA MYSORE DISTRICT 571 108.

THE THASILDAR PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE 571 108.

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE 571 108.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANDITAVAHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, HANDITAVAHALLI, RAVANDOOR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE 571 108

.…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE MEMORANDUM DTD 13.05.2019 MADE BY THE R-4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE WHEREIN DIRECTED THE R-4-PDO, TO EVICT THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND IN SY.NO.2 OF HANDITHAVALLI VILLAGE, RAVANDUR HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK VIDE ANNXA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for quashing of Annexure-A which is an order dated 13.05.2019 addressed to the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO).

By this order, the PDO has been directed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat to conduct a spot inspection and if he finds that there is any

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020

encroachment, he should take appropriate steps to evict the unauthorized occupants.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application for grant of the unauthorisedly occupied land under Annexure-B and even before the said application was considered, the impugned order has been passed directing his eviction.

It is submitted that if that is permitted, the petitioner’s application seeking for grant of the unauthorisedly occupied land would be frustrated.

In my view, since Annexure-B indicates that an application for regularization of the unauthorized land has been made on 11.02.2019 i.e., before the impugned order was passed on 13.05.2019, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Until such a decision is taken,

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:347 WP No. 7859 of 2020

status quo as it exists today shall be maintained.

This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

HNM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56