Sri Keshava Bhat K Vs the Assistant Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1334 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KESHAVA BHAT K S/O. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, UJIRE, ATTAJE HOUSE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 240.

¶10

SRI. PRASAD KUMAR S/O. SRI. KUMARAYYA ARIGA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DONGRE COMPOUND, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 214.

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SRI. SHAMARAYA ACHARYA S/O. DEVAPPA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MAIN ROAD, UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 240.

¶13

SRI. PRABHAT KUMAR S/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ARUNAJYOTHI, R/AT UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TQ., DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 240.

¶14

SRI. VENUGOPAL S/O. PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 240.

¶19

…APPELLANTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 214.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SUB-DIVISION, BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 214.

¶24

SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O. LATE SANJEEVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, COLLEGE ROAD, UJIRE VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001.

¶25

SRI. ASHOK BHAT AGED: MAJOR, R/AT UJIRE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 240.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. SUDEV HEGDE M N, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS & SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03/07/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.27957/2015 [KLR-RES] AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶36

The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.27957 of 2015.

¶37

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ court, for the sake of convenience.

¶38

The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 28.04.2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub-Division, Puttur, as well as the order dated 11.06.2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.574 of 2004.

¶39

The petitioner was allotted a site in Survey No.214/2A11 in Ujire Village on 02.10.1996. It appears that the petitioner had made construction on the said site.

¶40

A public interest litigation in Writ Petition No.25198 of 1998 was filed before this Court challenging the allotments made under the Ashraya Scheme, including to the petitioner. The said public interest litigation in Writ Petition No. 25198 of 1998 came to be disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 24.10.2002. The Division Bench, while disposing of the said

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

public interest litigation, directed the respondent -authorities to conduct an enquiry for allotting the public land within 40 meters from the edge of the road. The petitioner had admitted that her site would be within 11.5 meters from the edge of the road.

¶44

The Assistant Commissioner / first respondent, on the basis of the admission of the petitioner that she was allotted a site within 40 meters from the edge of the road, cancelled the allotment vide order dated 28.04.2004, after eight years from the date of the allotment. The petitioner had already put in construction during this period.

¶45

The said order dated 28.04.2004, passed by the

¶46

Assistant Commissioner, came to be challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.574 of 2004. However, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

¶47

Challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.27957 of 2015, in which the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 has been passed, whereby

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the matter had been remitted back to the file of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶51

We have perused the order passed in the public interest litigation in Writ Petition No.25198 of 2018. The learned Division Bench, while considering the fact of allotment of the Government land under the Ashraya Scheme within 40 meters from the edge of the road, had only directed for making an enquiry regarding the allotment made to the persons under the Ashraya Scheme within 40 meters from the edge of the road, but had not directed for cancellation of the allotment already made long back or removal of the construction put up by the persons after the sites were allotted to them.

¶52

The Assistant Commissioner had cancelled the allotment after eight years from the date of allotment made in 1996 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner had put up the construction in the meantime. The petitioner cannot be held responsible if she was allotted a land / site in violation of the requirement of 40 meters distance from the edge of the road. She is a bona fide allottee who has put up the construction after the site was allotted to her by the authorities under the Ashraya Scheme.

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7565-DB WA No. 1334 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In view thereof, learned Single Judge has remanded

¶56

the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to hold a fresh enquiry and thereafter, take necessary action. We do not find that such an order requires an interference by this Court, particularly when the petitioner cannot be said to have played any fraud in the allotment of the site to her within 40 meters from the edge of the road. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶57

12. We, therefore, dismiss the writ appeal.

¶58

However, the Assistant Commissioner should issue anotice to the appellant herein also, before conducting a fresh enquiry.

¶59

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending application does not survive for consideration and it is also disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶62

Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Keshava Bhat K v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Keshava Bhat K v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Legal Manager Vs Master Ranjeeth Kumar

Sri Mallesha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Cherian a Paul Vs Mr. Pritish P

M/S. Aparna Constructions and Estates Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs Navya P Acharya

Sri Krishna Mutt Parisara Prathishtana (R) Vs the Commissioner