The Commissioner Vs the Chief Secretary — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Commissioner Vs the Chief Secretary — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal allowed; judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the writ Court (learned Single Judge) in WP No.17019/2024 set aside, with liberty to the parties to take recourse to appropriate proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ Court ought to have entertained WP No.17019/2024, given that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and possession of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.220/6 are involved, and whether the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2025 should stand.

Court's answer

In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot decide the question of ownership and possession.

Ratio / Principle

Since disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and possession of the land are involved, the writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition; accordingly the Division Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, with liberty to the parties to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, as public law remedy would not be available in such a case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LB-RES) under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 — Division Bench of D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf JJ. (oral judgment per D K Singh J.), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, 02-06-2026, WA No. 389 of 2025. The Mysuru City Corporation's intra-Court appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment/order dated 17.01.2025 in WP No.17019/2024 was allowed and the impugned judgment set aside. Held: in exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court cannot decide questions of ownership and possession; where disputed questions of fact on ownership and possession of 25 guntas in Sy.No.220/6 are involved (rival claims resting on a 1974 acquisition versus a 2019 revenue-record entry, and a compound wall allegedly blocking access), the writ Court ought not to have entertained the petition; parties were left with liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings, public law remedy being unavailable in such a case.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25710-DB WA No. 389 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 389 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, NEXT TO BANUMAIAH COLLEGE, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, AGRAHARA CHAMARAJPURA, MYSURU - 570 024.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. GAURAV G.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, GIRIBHOVIPALYA, SIDDHARTA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 011.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MYSORE CITY WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD, JALA BHAVAN, 2^ND FLOOR, P-4, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, SAWASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 009.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25710-DB WA No. 389 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI. SHRINIVAS P.D., S/O. DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. 291, 5^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSSS, GOKULAM, 2^ND STAGE, VANI VILAS MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 002.

SMT. PUTTATAYAMMA, W/O. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. 2462/2, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 012.

SMT. D. KEMPAMMA, W/O. LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. 2462/2, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 012.

SMT. GAYATHRI. P.D., W/O. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. 2344, 5^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 012.

SMT. S. SUSHEELA, W/O. LATE P.D. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. 2344, 5^TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 012.

SMT. PAVITRA. C, W/O. VIJAY M, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. 2344, 5^TH MAIN,

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25710-DB WA No. 389 of 2025

HC-KAR

VINAYAKA NAGAR, PADAVARAHALLI, MYSORE - 570 012.

SMT. MAMATA. C, D/O. LATE P.D. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. 2462/2, 3^RD MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 012.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR K.M. ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R10)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:17.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 17019/2024 AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.17019/2024 instituted by the respondents.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25710-DB WA No. 389 of 2025

HC-KAR

According to the respondents/petitioners before

the writ Court, they alleged that the Mysuru City Corporation had constructed a compound wall, which has blocked the entry to the property of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.220/6 measuring 25 guntas. A joint survey was conducted which indicated that the petitioner holding was to the extent of 25 guntas and that his holding would be part of the area of Sy.No.220/6.

On the other hand, the case of the Corporation is that the land of the petitioner stood acquired way back

in the year 1974 and the petitioner's name, for whatsoever reason surreptitiously precisely entered into the revenue record in the year 2019 and on the basis of the revenue entry which came into existence in 2019, he

is claiming right over the 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.220/6. However, these assertions have been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25710-DB WA No. 389 of 2025

HC-KAR

This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot decide the question of ownership and possession and

therefore, the writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition. As the disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and possession of the land are involved, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge and with liberty to the parties to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings as public law remedy would not be available in such a case.

We therefore, allow this writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the writ Court.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 ct-vn