Dismissed¶49

Sri. Manohara v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/33105/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised occupant Sy.No.105 ArahatoLalu Kaimara village Holehonnur Bhadravathi Shivamogga; regularisation applications Form No.53 Form No.57 pending before competent authority; villagers' customary burial and funeral rites claim over land; complaint dated 17.10.2025 Annexure-B; Tahasildar complaint Annexure-A; SHO endorsement declining to act upheld; police protection via mandamus refused; police non-intermeddling in civil disputes absent semblance of right; no Article 226 interference; writ petition dismissed; High Court of Karnataka 15.04.2026; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement issued by the Station House Officer declining to act on the complaint does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ¶44

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed to consider the petitioner's written complaint dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure-B), take necessary action against respondents 4 to 8, and provide police protection to the petitioner. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

¶44

Key takeaways

Police ought not to intermeddle in civil disputes, particularly when the complainant has not established any semblance of right over the property in question; the endorsement declining to act is in consonance with these settled principles.ratio¶47
The dispute transcends a mere private dispute and partakes the character of a community-centric claim intertwined with questions of usage, custom and public interest (villagers' asserted customary rights of burial and performance of last rites), which would necessarily require adjudication by the competent authority in accordance with law; the competing claims are not on equal legal footing since the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant awaiting regularisation with no lawful title.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.) dismisses W.P. No. 33105/2025 (GM-Police) filed under Articles 226/227 seeking mandamus to respondent No.2 (Police Inspector, Holehonnuru) to act on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure-B) against respondents 4–8 and provide police protection. Held: the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of Sy.No.105 whose regularisation applications (Form Nos.53 and 57) remain pending, so he possesses no vested or perfected right; the dispute arises from villagers asserting customary and longstanding rights of burial and performance of last rites over the land, making it a community-centric claim involving usage, custom and public interest requiring adjudication by the competent authority. The Station House Officer's endorsement declining to act is consonant with the settled principle that police ought not to intermeddle in civil disputes where the complainant has not established any semblance of right over the property; hence no ground for interference under Article 226. Petition dismissed; petitioner left free to pursue regularisation before the competent authority.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 33105 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANOHARA S/O. LATE ARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT ARAHATOLALU KAIMARA VILLAGE HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 243.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶14

THE POLICE INSPECTOR HOLEHONNURU POLICE SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 243.

¶16

MR. ESHWARA S/O. LATE CHINNAPPA

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶20

MR. DEVENDRA S/O. PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶21

MR. SWAMINATH S/O. KENCHAPPA

¶22

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶23

MR. VELU S/O. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶24

MR. MANI S/O. KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶25

RESP NOS.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT ARAHATOLALU KAIMARA VILLAGE HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 243.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN PRODUCED AT (ANNEXURE-B) FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

8 HEREIN AND ALSO FOR PROVIDING POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The captioned petition is filed seeking a direction at the hands of this Court to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's written complaint dated 17.10.2025 as per Annexure-B and take necessary action against respondents no.4 to 8 and also provide police protections.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶36

On a careful and circumspect examination of the pleadings, averments and documents placed on record, more particularly Annexures–A and B, this Court finds that the very foundation of the petitioner’s case proceeds on an unequivocal admission that he is an unauthorised occupant in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.105. The material on record further

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

discloses that the petitioner has invoked the provisions relating to regularisation by submitting applications in Form Nos.53 and 57 before the competent authority, and it is not in dispute that the said applications are presently pending consideration. This aspect assumes significance, as the petitioner, having himself sought regularisation, implicitly acknowledges the absence of any vested or perfected right over the subject property as on date.

¶40

Equally, a perusal of the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional Tahasildar, as evidenced at Annexure–A, and the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police, as evidenced at Annexure–B, would indicate that the genesis of the dispute is not a simple case of interference with possession, but arises out of a larger communal assertion concerning the use of the land. The contents of the said complaints reveal that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner is in the backdrop of a survey conducted in the said survey number and the alleged acts of villagers who are asserting a customary and longstanding right to use the subject land for burial and to conduct funeral rites.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Therefore, the dispute, as it emerges from the record, is one where the petitioner, who admittedly does not possess lawful title and is at best an applicant seeking regularisation, is seeking to interdict the exercise of what the villagers claim to be their traditional and customary rights of burial and performance of last rites over the very same land. The competing claims, thus, are not on equal legal footing, on one hand is an unauthorised occupant awaiting regularisation, and on the other is a collective assertion by the villagers grounded in usage relating to burial and cremation. This conflict clearly demonstrates that the issue transcends a mere private dispute and partakes the character of a community-centric claim intertwined with questions of usage, custom and public interest, which would necessarily require adjudication by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶44

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the endorsement issued by the Station House Officer declining to act on the complaint does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said endorsement

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20359 WP No. 33105 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

is in consonance with settled principles that the police ought not to intermeddle in civil disputes, particularly when the complainant has not established any semblance of right over the property in question.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of merits. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to pursue his application for regularisation before the competent authority and work out his remedies in accordance with law.

¶49

With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶50

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶51

HDK

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. Manohara v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manohara v. the State of Karnataka by

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

M/S Samaraat Agencies Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Suresh Poojary Vs Smt. Anasuya Shetty

K C Krishnegowda Vs the Returning Officer

Dr. Chethan Narayana Vs Union of India

Mr N Praveen @ Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnaraja Sports Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka