Dismissed

Smt. Susheela v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026WP/20550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, by an oral order dismissed the writ petition filed by an individual alleging encroachment on a private property's approach road by Respondent No. 4, noting the absence of allegations against public officials and granting liberty to approach civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach the jurisdictional civil Court seeking appropriate relief.

Smt. Susheela Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1133 WP No. 20550 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20550 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHEELA W/O SRI RAGHU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/A NO.579, 1^ST A CROSS DOMLUR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 071

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE M G ROAD, LALBAGH MANGALORE-575006

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY URVA STORES ASHOKANAGAR POST MANGALORE-575006

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1133 WP No. 20550 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. MALATHI

¶20

MAJOR, R/AT GL-7-36/1, 7TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA, SURATHKAL HOBLI, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 014.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BILIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. K.N. NITHISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 16/06/2023 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F AND G.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

"Wherefore, THE Petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

¶30

i) ISSUE a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.06.2023 given by the petitioner vide at Annexure F and Annexure G.

¶31

ii) To issue such other Writ/Order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, with cost, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1133 WP No. 20550 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner claims that he had purchased nonagricultural properties situated in No. 50, Iddya Village of Mangalore Taluk within the limits of the Mangalore City Corporation as per the sale deed at Annexure A dated 07.12.2012 alleging that the respondent No. 4 is putting up construction by encroaching on the 03 metre wide approach road situated on the east of the property at Sl.No.(1) of the said sale deed. The petitioner had approached the respondent to take necessary action. No action have been taken. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the appropriate relief.

¶36

Notice having been issued. Respondent No. 4 has entered appearance and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the construction, which is being put up by respondent No. 4 is after obtaining necessary Plan sanction and Building License.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:1133 WP No. 20550 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Heard Sri. Kumbar Vasant Fakeerappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sti. Boppanna Beliyappa, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri. K Nithish, learned counsel for respondent No.3, and Sri. Ajay Prabhu M, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the papers.

¶41

A perusal of the writ petition and the allegations which have been made would only indicate that the grievance of the petitioner is as regards the encroachment of an approach road which is stated to be 03 meter wide. If that be so, it is not a public road as regards which an allegation is made. There is no particular allegation as regards violation of the plan sanctioned or otherwise inasmuch as, there is a plan sanction which has been obtained by the respondent No. 4 who has also obtained a Building Licence.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:1133 WP No. 20550 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

In these circumstances, there being no allegation or complaint against the official respondents in discharge of their public duties, a writ petition cannot be maintained.

¶46

In that view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed , reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil Court seeking for appropriate relief.

¶47

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

BSV

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

Smt. Susheela v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Susheela v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K K Aiyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Babulal Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Narayanappa Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hajimastan Vs State by

Smt. Vidya Vs the Commissioner

Shri Varnit Jain Vs the State of Karnataka