Dismissed

Sri.Malaram v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WP/27638/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to consider their representations dated 14.08.2026 and a stay against demolition of their shop premises. The court held that the nature of relief sought—protection against forcible eviction and demolition—is essentially civil in nature, and therefore the Tahsildar cannot be directed to consider the representations via a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri.Malaram Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50594 WP No. 27638 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010603512026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.27638 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MALARAM S/O. SAJJARAMJI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HOSPITAL ROAD, HOSAPETE, HULIYURDURGA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 572123.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. NATARAJU S/O. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT HOSPITAL ROAD, HOSAPETE, HULIYURDURGA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 572123.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ARUNACHALAM SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:50594 WP No. 27638 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010603512026

¶21

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572130.

¶23

SRI DAMODAR CHHATRA SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY AND PRASANNA NANJUNDESHWARA SWAMY CHARITABLE TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, HULIYURDURGA, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572130.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE DATED 14.08.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 AND NOTIFICATION REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.07.2026 ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS THEREON WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND, PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE SAID REPRESENTATIONS, RESTRAIN RESPONDENT NO.3, ITS REPRESENTATIVES, SERVANTS, CONTRACTORS AND ALL PERSONS OFFICE-BEARERS, AGENTS, CLAIMING THROUGH OR

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:50594 WP No. 27638 of 2026

¶29

¶30

CNR: KAHC010603512026

¶31

UNDER IT, NOT TO DEMOLISH, REMOVE, ALTER, DAMAGE OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING SHOP PREMISES IN THE PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONERS, OR FORCIBLY DISPOSSESS OR ATTEMPT TO DISPOSSESS THE PETITIONERS THEREFROM. THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE HEREWITH PRODUCED AND 14.08.2026 SUBMITTED BY MARKED AS ANNEXURES-A AND B, RESPECTIVELY, AND A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DVS:CR:101/202627 DATED 23.07.2026 IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C.

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶37

In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for consideration of the representation dated 14.08.2026, produced as Annexure-A by the respondent-authorities.

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:50594 WP No. 27638 of 2026

¶41

CNR: KAHC010603512026

¶42

Perusal of the averments made in the

¶43

representation would indicate that the petitioners have sought for protection against forcible eviction/demolition. In view of the nature of the relief sought, the matter is essentially civil in nature. Accordingly, Respondent No.2-Tahasildar, cannot be directed to consider the representation produced at AnnexureA.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is

¶45

dismissed.

¶46

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶47

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri.Malaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri.Malaram v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases