Dismissed¶39

Sri Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/22064/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; mandamus for consideration of representation dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure-A); free site allotment a matter of State policy; no mandamus against State; no vested right enforced; homeless SC/ST petitioners; layout and site allotment, Survey No.120, Bettadamane Village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru; Kirugunda Gram Panchayath PDO; Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar, Mudigere; writ petition dismissed with clarificatory caveat; Karnataka High Court, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Allotment of free sites to any person is based upon the policy of the State, and no mandamus can be issued to the State in this regard. ¶38

Sri Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20387 WP No. 22064 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22064 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. UMESH S/O UDAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. KIRAN S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. VASANTHA S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT BETTADAMANE VILLAGE AND POST, GONIBEEDU HOBLI, MUDEGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577101. …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA GOWDA B R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPT, M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALAURU-560001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:20387 WP No. 22064 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU- 577101.

¶20

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIRUGUNDA GRAM PANCHAYATH, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRCIT- 577101.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R4; ASHOK.N.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER VILLAGERS DATED 04.04.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:20387 WP No. 22064 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The case of the petitioners is that they are homeless persons belonging to the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribe communities. Hence, they have made a representations to the authorities concerned to form a layout in Survey No.120 of Bettadamane Village, Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and allot sites to them. As the respondents have not acted upon the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶32

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or Order or any other Writ or Direction, directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to consider the application / representation filed by the Petitioners and other Villagers dated: 04.04.2025 vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

b) Allow the Writ Petition with cost and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:20387 WP No. 22064 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In respect of the allotment of free sites to any

¶38

person, it is based upon the policy of the State and no mandamus can be issued to the State in this regard. Admittedly, no vested right of the petitioners has been sought to be enforced by the present writ petition.

¶39

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the State to consider the request of the petitioner, if it is permissible under law.

¶40

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Umesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K R Venkatachala Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. K Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Rudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Manjula Vs Shri. Arul Moli

Sri. Srinivasalu. P. G. Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Anitha Vs State of Karnataka