Sri Sampath Sundar Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO RESTORE VILLAGE ROAD NO.279 WITHIN KARIMANNE VILLAGE AS EVIDENT IN DRRP MAP AT ANNEXURE-AU, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO FORM WMB (WATER BOUND MACADAM ROAD) BY COLLECTING NECESSARY FUNDS FROM THE RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 8 FOR HAVING TATTERED AND

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:19725 WP No. 30813 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

DAMAGED THE EXISTING EARTHEN ROAD, IMPRESS PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

The case of the petitioners is that there exists a public road in Karimanne Village, namely Village Road No.279, which they are using to access their respective properties. It is further submitted that the respondent– State has invited tenders for the formation of a pucca road and has awarded the contract to the Karnataka Rural Road Development Agency (KRRDA). However, subsequently, the authorities have considered the said portion of the property as not a public road and on the contrary, have considered it to be private property belonging to respondent Nos.5 to 8. Subsequently, respondent Nos.5 to 8 have fenced the property, including the portion over

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19725 WP No. 30813 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

which the alleged road existed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the authorities concerned to restore the Village Road No.279.

¶52

The contention of the petitioners is that the

¶53

subject property is a public road. On the contrary, the respondents, including the concerned authorities, contend that it is private property belonging to respondent Nos.5 to 8. It is the specific case of respondent Nos.5 to 8 that, earlier, there existed a larger extent of property, which was subsequently divided between the predecessors-intitle of respondent Nos.5 to 8 on the one hand and some of the petitioners on the other. A portion of the property belonging to respondent Nos.5 to 8 was, for the sake of convenience, was being used as an access to certain properties. It is submitted that the petitioners or any third party does not have any easementary right over the same.

¶54

The lis involves disputed questions of facts as to

¶55

whether there exists a public road or not as contended by the petitioners; whether the alleged road is private

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:19725 WP No. 30813 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

property of respondent Nos.5 to 8 or not, if yes, the petitioners have any easementary rights or not; or whether the road was formed for personal use of the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.5 to 8 only or not.

¶60

These aspects cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶61

If the petitioners are aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, they are required to approach the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction. However, taking into consideration that the said area was being used as a pathway, it would be appropriate to maintain status quo in respect of the said portion of the property for a period of four (04) months from today. Hence, the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of , reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court of competent

¶64

jurisdiction to redress their grievances.

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:19725 WP No. 30813 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

ii. The respondents are directed to maintain status

¶69

quo in respect of the alleged road / pathway for a period of four (04) months from today.

¶70

iii. However, respondent Nos.5 to 8 are hereby directed to remove the fencing regarding the said pathway.

¶71

iv. It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and it is for the Civil Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶72

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶73

CH

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri Sampath Sundar Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sampath Sundar Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun Rajendra Vs the Chief Commissioner

Maha Jabeen Vs Assist Commissioner (South Zone)

Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs State of Karnataka

K Praveen Vs the Secretary

Rakesh P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. T Sheshaiah Vs the State of Karnataka