Dismissed¶57

Smt Bhagyamma v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026WP/11681/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Encroachment on conservancy lane / public property; Yeliyuru Village Panchayathi, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District; complaint by respondent No.3 Smt. Manjulamma; spot inspection report; order by Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath under Sections 269 and 72(2), Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993; boundary to be limited as per title deeds / deed of conveyance; disputed question of fact not decidable under Article 226 writ jurisdiction; liberty to approach Civil Court; writ petition dismissed; GPA18/2022-23/1922; Annexure-A; WP No. 11681 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to enforce their rights over their properties in accordance with law before the Civil Court. ¶57

Smt Bhagyamma Vs the Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to enforce their rights over their properties in accordance with law before the Civil Court.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in GPA18/2022-23/1922, directing removal of the petitioners' alleged encroachment on public property (conservancy lane) and limiting their boundary to the measurements in their deeds of conveyance, is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

On the pleadings and the spot inspection report, respondent No.1 correctly concluded that the petitioners had encroached upon the conservancy lane in Yeliyuru village, a Government property, and directed its removal; the Court found no error in that conclusion.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

In exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact.

¶51

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are of the opinion that they have not encroached upon any property as alleged in the impugned order, they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES) dismissed. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath Office, Devanahalli (respondent No.1), by order dated 25.11.2025 in GPA18/2022-23/1922 (Annexure-A), acting on a complaint by respondent No.3 and a spot inspection report, invoked Sections 269 and 72(2) of the Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to direct removal of the petitioners' encroachment on a conservancy lane at Yeliyuru village (a Government property) and to limit their boundaries to the measurements in their deeds of conveyance. The petitioners contended the finding of encroachment was erroneous and that respondent No.3 herself had encroached. Holding that in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact, and finding no error in the impugned order, the High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to enforce their rights over their properties before the Civil Court in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 11681 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶9

SRI. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICE DEVANAHALLI

¶16

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶17

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER YALIYURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATHI

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.

¶22

SMT. MANJULAMMA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶23

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GANESH N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. N.M.BHASKAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25-11-2025 PASSED IN GPA18/2022-23/1922 PASSED

¶27

BY RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by respondent no.1 in GPA18/202223/1922 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition).

¶35

By virtue of the impugned order, respondent no.1 has directed removal of the encroachment committed by the petitioners herein on public property and limit their boundary to the measurement as contained in their deed of conveyance. Petitioners were arrayed as respondent nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings before respondent no.1. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶36

"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀégÁeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ-1993 ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 269 gÀr ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀÄÝ,

¶37

2£ÉÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄªÀ AiÀÄ°AiÀÄÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ vÉjUÉ ¤zsÀðgÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:286 D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:375, D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:312, D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:314 gÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄªÀ G-zÀ «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-02-1971 gÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁj ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃmï ºÁUÀÆ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:1174/1974-75 gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19-06-1974 gÀ°è 131£ÉÃ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ MmÁÖgÉ G-zÀ:40 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢üÞ C¢üPÁj gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶38

ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄªÀ vÉjUÉ ¤zsÀðgÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖ PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:285 D¹ÛAiÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw£À ¸ÀASÉå:311 gÀ°è ¥À¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À:43 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹, £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:1238/1979-80 gÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:31-051979 gÀ°è 132£ÉÃ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆ-¥À:40 Cr «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

¶43

PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶44

ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ ºÁUÀÆ 3£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À §½ EgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÆ®/£ÉÆÃAzÁ¬ÄvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ CgÀªÀgÀªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À «¹ÛÃtðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀégÁeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï gÁeï C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ-1993 ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 72(2) gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ ©Ã¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ°

¶45

¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ°£À CqÉvÀqÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MvÀÄÛªÀj vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¸À®Ä UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ C¢üPÁgÀ«gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:131 gÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÉÃ±À£À ¸ÀASÉå:132 gÀ zÀQëtQÌgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 16 (ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄ) Cr CUÀ®ªÀÅ¼Àî PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ MvÀÄÛªÀjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¹, ¸ÀzÀj PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ §¼ÀPÉUÉ ªÀÄÄPÀÛªÁVj¸À®Ä ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw C©üªÀÈ¢Ý C¢üPÁj gÀªÀjUÉ DzÉÃ²¹, ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÉ."

¶46

Perusal of the impugned order shows that a complaint was made against the petitioners by respondent no.3 alleging that they have encroached upon a public property (conservancy). After conducting the necessary proceedings, respondent no.1 based upon the pleadings and the spot inspection report has come to the conclusion that petitioners herein have indeed encroached upon conservancy lane in Yeliyuru village, which is a Government property and has ordered removal of the said encroachment. I do not see any error in the said case.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

However, petitioners contend that finding of fact about encroachment by the petitioners by respondent no.1 in the impugned order is erroneous. He further contends that it is not the petitioners who have encroached upon the conservancy, but it is respondent no.3 herself, at whose instance proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners.

¶50

Both the counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and also for respondent no.3 together deny the statement made by the petitioners and they submit that, it is the petitioners who have encroached upon the public property and they justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶51

This Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide as to the disputed question of facts and if the petitioners are of the opinion that they have not encroached upon any property as alleged in the impugned order, they are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law. Further, it is noticed the impugned order states that the boundary of the petitioners herein has to be limited as per their title deeds in respect of their properties.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:20716 WP No. 11681 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55