Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri P S Rajegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri P S Rajegowda Vs State of KarnatakaSri P S Rajegowda v. State of Karnataka

Dismissed¶41

Sri P S Rajegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026WP/30746/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:1572 | WP No. 30746 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), High Court of Karnataka, R Devdas J., 12-01-2026 | Article 226 writ petition to quash Tahsildar endorsement dated 03.07.2025, No.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25 (Annexure-K) | Kaludari (Pathway), Sy.No.108/1 and Sy.No.108/3, Paduvagere Village, Amruthur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District | Taluka Surveyor's Report; no pathway per Village Map | easement rights / access through neighbouring owner's land (respondent No.5 P.H.Chikkahuchaiah) | Revenue Department Circular dated 20.10.2023, No.RD 23 LPG 2022 | remedy lies before competent Civil Court by way of declaration | petition dismissed with liberty to approach Civil Court | State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar Kunigal; HCGP Shamanth Naik for R1-R4; advocate Harsha Kumar Gowda H.R. for petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or to redress his grievance only in accordance with law.

Why is it important?

If the petitioner is seeking easement rights over the property belonging to respondent No.5, he will have to approach the competent Civil Court seeking such a declaration. ¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or to redress his grievance only in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 03.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk), bearing No.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25 (Annexure-K), should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the finding of the Tahsildar that there is no pathway in terms of the Village Map on the property belonging to respondent No.5, the petitioner's request was rightly rejected by the Tahsildar.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is seeking easement rights over the property belonging to respondent No.5, he will have to approach the competent Civil Court seeking such a declaration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), W.P. No. 30746 of 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR), decided 12.01.2026 by R Devdas, J.: The petitioner sought the assistance of the Revenue Authorities to use a Kaludari (Pathway) over Sy.No.108/1 of Paduvagere Village, Amruthur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, and contended that, in terms of the Revenue Department Circular dated 20.10.2023 (No.RD 23 LPG 2022), provision should be made for him to have access to his property through the land of respondent No.5. The Tahsildar's endorsement dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure-K), based on the Taluka Surveyor's Report, stated that there was no Kaludari (Pathway) either in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3. Held: a petitioner seeking easement rights over another's property must approach the competent Civil Court for such a declaration; having regard to the Tahsildar's finding that there is no pathway in terms of the Village Map on respondent No.5's property, the request was rightly rejected. Writ petition under Article 226 dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or to redress his grievance in accordance with law.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1572 WP No. 30746 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO. 30746 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI P S RAJEGOWDA S/O P.U SAMPATHU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A PADUVAGERE VILLAGE AND POST, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572111.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R.., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.

TAHASILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1572 WP No. 30746 of 2025

HC-KAR

P.H.CHIKKAHUCHAIAH, S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A PADUVAGERE VILLAGE AND POST, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572111.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE R4 BEARING NO.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

for respondents No.1 to 4. Notice to respondent No.5 is not necessary for the following reasons:

The petitioner was contending that there was a

Kaludari (Pathway) over the neighbouring property bearing Sy.No.108/1 of Paduvagere Village, Amruthur

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1572 WP No. 30746 of 2025

HC-KAR

Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, and therefore, the petitioner was seeking the assistance of the Revenue Authorities to make use of the pathway. However, an endorsement is issued by the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk at Annexure-K stating that as per the Taluka Surveyor’s Report, there was no Kaludari (Pathway) either in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3. Therefore, now it is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the Circular dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Revenue Department bearing No.RD 23 LPG 2022, provision should be made for the petitioner to have access to his property through the property belonging to respondent No.5.

In the considered opinion of this Court, if the petitioner is seeking easement rights over the property belonging to respondent No.5, then the petitioner will have to approach the competent Civil Court seeking such a declaration. Having regard to the finding of the Tahsildar that there is no pathway in terms of the Village Map on the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1572 WP No. 30746 of 2025

HC-KAR

property belonging to respondent No.5, such a request made by the petitioner is rightly rejected by the Tahsildar.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court or to redress his grievance only in

accordance with law.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL CT: JL

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the endorsement dated 03.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk), bearing No.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25 (Annexure-K), should be quashed.¶25
The court held
Having regard to the finding of the Tahsildar that there is no pathway in terms of the Village Map on the property belonging to respondent No.5, the petitioner's request was rightly rejected by the Tahsildar.ratio¶40
2.
Whether, in terms of the Revenue Department Circular dated 20.10.2023 (No.RD 23 LPG 2022), provision should be made for the petitioner to have access to his property through respondent No.5's land, notwithstanding the finding that no Kaludari (pathway) exists on the Village Map.¶35
The court held
If the petitioner is seeking easement rights over the property belonging to respondent No.5, he will have to approach the competent Civil Court seeking such a declaration.ratio¶36

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶25
Revenue Department Circular No.RD 23 LPG 2022 (dated 20.10.2023)Circular dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Revenue Department bearing No.RD 23 LPG 2022¶35

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement dated 03.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk), bearing No.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25, produced at Annexure-K, stating that per the Taluka Surveyor's Report there was no Kaludari (Pathway) in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3.¶25
Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk · 03.07.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner contended that a Kaludari (Pathway) existed over the neighbouring Sy.No.108/1 of Paduvagere Village and sought the assistance of the Revenue Authorities to make use of it.¶35
Prior proceeding
Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk issued the endorsement at Annexure-K stating that, as per the Taluka Surveyor's Report, there was no Kaludari (Pathway) either in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3.¶35
Prior proceeding
Petitioner thereafter contended that, in terms of the Revenue Department Circular dated 20.10.2023 (No.RD 23 LPG 2022), provision should be made for him to have access to his property through respondent No.5's land.¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI P S RAJEGOWDA S/O P.U SAMPATHU¶10
SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R.
respondent
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE¶15
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK
respondent
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT¶16
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK
respondent
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT¶17
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK
respondent
TAHASILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK¶18
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK
respondent
P.H.CHIKKAHUCHAIAH S/O LATE HUCHEGOWDA¶22

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Devdasauthor¶27

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 12 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 10 Oct 2025
Case no.: WP/30746/2025
CNR: KAHC010661542025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: R Devdas
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (KLR-RR/SUR)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R Devdas

Mr Chennappa Vs State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
Sri S Wilson Raj Vs State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
Sri Jayalakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka
9 Jan 2026
Sri Syed Peer Vs Assistant Commissioner
12 Jan 2026
Sri Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka
12 Jan 2026
Sri Chowdareddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner
12 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri P S Rajegowda v. State of Karnataka, WP/30746/2025 (KA), decided on 12 January 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Revenue Department Circular No.RD 23 LPG 2022 (dated 20.10.2023)Circular dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Revenue Department bearing No.RD 23 LPG 2022

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Endorsement dated 03.07.2025 issued by respondent No.4 (Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk), bearing No.NCR.CR.547, 423, 497/2024-25, produced at Annexure-K, stating that per the Taluka Surveyor's Report there was no Kaludari (Pathway) in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3.Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk · 03.07.2025
Petitioner contended that a Kaludari (Pathway) existed over the neighbouring Sy.No.108/1 of Paduvagere Village and sought the assistance of the Revenue Authorities to make use of it.
Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk issued the endorsement at Annexure-K stating that, as per the Taluka Surveyor's Report, there was no Kaludari (Pathway) either in Sy.No.108/1 or Sy.No.108/3.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Devdas

Parties & counsel