The State of Karnataka Vs Mrs. Shanaaz Hameed

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶11

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, NOW YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 560 064.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BENGALURU 560 064

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)

¶23

AND:

¶24

MRS. SHANAAZ HAMEED, W/O MR. TAQLIB HASAN DARVESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.51/1, PROMENADE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU 560 005.

¶25

MR. K.N. GOPAL, S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE, THARAHUSANE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 562 157.

¶26

MRS. M.R. MAMATHA, W/O K.N.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE, THARAHUSANE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU 562 157.

¶27

MIS. SAMPRADA, D/O MR. K.N. GOPAL, RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE, THARAHUSANE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

BENGALURU 562 157

¶32

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP No. 11112/2022 (KLR-RES), ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

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

¶38

Heard Mr. M N Sudev Hegde, learned Additional

¶39

Government Advocate appearing for the appellants-State and Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶40

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 22.0.2024 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.9046/2002 and connected writ petition.

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Learned AGA submits that the wall in question had been constructed on Government land and that the encroachment was removed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru, in accordance with law. He submits that the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 in CCC No.866/2022 were dropped vide order dated 27.09.2024. He further submits that the imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000/- for demolition exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additonal) Taluk, Now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru is not justified and that the appellants are not challenging the merits of the decision, but only the imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶45

Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, fairly submits before this Court that in view of the subsequent developments and the dropping of the contempt proceedings, respondent No.1 has no serious objection to the deletion of the costs of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions

¶49

and the explicit no-objection recorded by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, we are of the considered view that the imposition of the costs no longer survives under the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51