Dismissed

Sri B Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2026WA/817/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A landowner claimed a public road between a Government School and an Anganwadi provided access to his layout. A survey report found no such road and alternative northern access existed. Upholding the Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, declining to impose further costs beyond those already awarded below.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ appeal dismissed, existing Rs.50,000 cost order left undisturbed.

Sri B Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 817 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI B KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. SRI.BYATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 099.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.BHUVANENDRA RAJU.P AND SRI.P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATES)

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GRAM PANCHAYATH, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, MAHADEVAPURA VIDHANA SABHA CONSTITUTENCY, BUDIGERE CROSS, OPPOSITE TO GRAND WHEEL FACTORY, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE PRESIDENT, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIDARAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYATH, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶22

THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, DIESEL LOCO SHED ROAD, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL CAMPUS, TRIVENI NAGAR, K.R.PURA,

¶23

BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶24

THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARAGONDANAHALLI, K.R.PURAM POST, BANGALORE - 560 036.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R1, R4 AND R5)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING A). TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SINGLE JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN W.P.No.4638/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶35

The unsuccessful petitioner is before this Court in this Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4638/2022. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order dismissed the Writ Petition with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.

¶37

The brief factual matrix of the case leading to file this appeal are as under:

¶38

The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:

¶39

a) Declare that the Respondents No.2 to 3 are enabled to carry out and execute the work only as per the work order which at Annexure-H and

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

no more and in particular shall not block or alter

¶43

the nature of the Schedule ‘B’ property existing road abutting the 5th Respondent School on its Northern Side;

¶44

b) Be pleased to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case

¶45

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of land measuring 06 Acre 10 Guntas of land in Maragondanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It is his further case that after conversion, he had formed a layout in the said property and sold several sites to various purchasers. According to the petitioner, there exists a road situated between the Government School and the Anganawadi, which provides access to his layout and the respondents are proposing to close the said road. Hence, he submitted several representations seeking interference. As those representations were not considered, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs supra.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The respondents in response to notice appeared

¶49

before the Court. A survey was directed to be conducted and pursuant thereto, a survey report was placed on record. The survey report clearly indicated that there is no road in existence between the Government School and the Anganawadi. The report further disclosed that the School and the Anganawadi form a single composite property and that, it is only on the northern side of the School property that a road exists, which runs around the property adjoining that of the petitioner.

¶50

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thereafter called upon to produce documents regarding his contention of existing road between the Anganawadi and the Government School, but no such documents to substantiate the claim has been produced. However, the petitioner sought to rely upon a memo enclosing a Notice dated 10.02.2026 issued by respondents contending that issuance of such notice demonstrate that a road does, in fact, exist. He has further submitted that the respondent

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

themselves called upon the petitioner not to use the said road and therefore, the existence of road stands admitted and now the respondents are venturing to close the public road, thereby depriving the petitioner and members of the public to access to the layout.

¶54

Learned Addl. Advocate General, appeared in the matter, controverted said contention and submitted that there is no road exists between the School and the Anganawadi and the entire extent constitutes a single Government property, part of which is used as a School and the other as an Anganawadi. The notice dated 10.02.2026 was issued only to restrain the petitioner from using Government land unauthorizedly and cannot be construed as an admission of the existence of a road. He further submitted that there are no revenue records that reflect the existence of any such road. That apart, the petitioner has alternative access to his property from the northern side.

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

The learned Single Judge having considered the

¶58

entire material, comes to a conclusion, morefully at Paragraphs No.13, 14, 15, and 16 and formed an opinion that in the absence of cogent materials establishing the existence of a public road between the School and the Anganawadi and in the light of the categorical statement in the survey report, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge opined that the manner in which the litigation has been pursued and having regard to the nature of the claim, it is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs so as to deter abuse of the Writ jurisdiction of the Court, accordingly cost of Rs.50,000/- was imposed and directed the petitioner to

¶59

pay the same to the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent Fund within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which it will be liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this appeal.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Heard, Sri.P.B.Raju., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶64

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the submissions filed a memo furnishing the very same notice dated 10.02.2026 which has already been considered by the learned Single Judge, which is clearly indicated in Paragraph No.5 of the Order.

¶65

The learned Single Judge at paragraphs No.11 to 16 observed as under:

¶66

"11. The reliance placed on the notice dated 10.02.2026 is wholly misplaced. A notice restraining unauthorised use of Government land cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, amount to an acknowledgment of the existence of a public road. A public road is a matter of record and legal character; it cannot come into existence merely because a person has been using a portion of Government land or because a communication has been issued cautioning against such use. The legal status of land must

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

be borne out from statutory or revenue records and not from isolated correspondence.

¶71

12. It is also not the petitioner’s case that access to his property has been completely extinguished. The material on record indicates the existence of an alternative road on the northern side which provides access to the layout formed by the petitioner. The grievance, therefore, is not one of denial of access but one of seeking a more convenient or additional access. Convenience, however, cannot override title, nor can it create rights where none exist in law.

¶72

13. The character of land as a public road must be established through legally cognisable material. A private developer cannot, under the guise of asserting access rights, seek to appropriate Government land earmarked for public institutions. The property in question is utilised for a Government School and an Anganwadi which is dedicated to the welfare and development of children. Any attempt to dilute or encroach upon such land on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim would run contrary to public interest and the rule of law.

¶73

14. The present proceedings, viewed in their entirety, do not disclose a bona fide assertion of a legally enforceable right. Rather, they reflect an endeavour to project the existence of a road where none is recorded in official documents, with the apparent object of securing private

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

benefit. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot lend its approval to such an attempt.

¶78

15. In the absence of cogent material establishing the existence of a public road between the School and the Anganwadi, and in light of the categorical findings in the survey report, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petition is accordingly stands dismissed.

¶79

16. Having regard to the nature of the claim and the manner in which the litigation has been pursued, this is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs so as to deter abuse of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner shall pay costs of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent Fund within a period of four weeks from today, failing which it will be liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue."

¶80

In view of the categorical conclusion of the learned Single Judge with regard to existence of road on the basis of the report of the revenue authorities, no case has been made out by the appellant to take a contrary view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal sans merits and accordingly is, dismissed .

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:15773-DB WA No. 817 of 2026

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Though we are of the opinion that the conduct

¶85

of the unsuccessful petitioner having got the Writ Petition dismissed with costs and testing the same in appeal in an another round of litigation, he shall be imposed with an exemplary cost, however considering the submission of learned counsel Sri.P.B.Raju., we refrain to impose further costs.

¶86

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶87

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶88

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Sri B Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B Krishnamurthy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr B Gurappa Naidu Vs the Chief Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri Hanumantha Rao Gaikwad Vs State of Karnataka

V Muniraju Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri.Dhanavantari Rao Vs the Registrar General

Usharani Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs Sri G Nanjappa