Dismissed

Gaddegowda B G v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026WP/34121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order dismissing a writ petition filed to quash an order directing police protection for a respondent erecting a fence in disputed land. The Court noted a pending civil suit for permanent injunction. It held that interference is not appropriate without establishing title pending in the civil court and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending Intermediate Applications are not entertained.

Gaddegowda B G Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34121 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GADDEGOWDA B.G. S/O LATE GADDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT BEERAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 401.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NANJUNDARADHYA B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

TAHASILDAR

¶17

MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶18

POLICE INSPECTOR MANDYA RURAL POLICE STATION MANDYA - 571 401.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS (ADLR) MANDYA TALUK MANDYA - 571 401.

¶22

MADHUPRIYA B. W/O VARUN BHYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS VINAYAKA LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.M.S.C.C.R. 397/2024-25 DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 TO PROVIDE SUITABLE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS PROPERTY.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

1. In this petition, petitioner is assailing the Order dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2, inter alia, sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to provide protection to the petitioner and his property.

¶33

2. It is contended by S ri. Nanjundaradhya B.G. , learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had acquired the land bearing Survey No. 42/3 measuring 1.07 acres, situated Beeragowdanahalli Village, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the same as per registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003 (Annexure-B). It is also stated that the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner in so far as the subject land is concerned. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that there is an error in showing the extent of land in the mutation record and as such, the petitioner has made a representation dated 18.09.2024(Annexure-E) to the respondent No.2, requesting to rectify the same. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

know that the respondent No.5 is putting up fence in the land belonging to the petitioner and the same was resisted by the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel, that the petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.798/2024 before the Civil Judge and JMFC at Mandya seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant therein and the suit is pending consideration before the competent Court. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has committed an error in addressing a letter to respondent No.3 to provide police protection to respondent No.5 to put up fence in the land belonging to the petitioner and therefore challenges the letter dated 28.10.2024 as per Annexure-A to the Writ Petition.

¶38

3. Per contra, Sri. Prakash M.H., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, by referring to the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court and also to the averments made in the Writ Petition submitted that, since the lis between the parties is with regard to the boundaries and therefore, the petitioner has to establish his right over the property before the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Trial Court in the suit and accordingly sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶42

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate also argued in favour of the impugned order at Annexure-A and submitted that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, ADLR has conducted spot inspection and sketch has been prepared and same is filed before this Court and accordingly sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶43

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and taking into consideration the averments made in the Writ Petition, would indicate that there is a boundary dispute between the parties as to the subject land is concerned. It is also to be noted that this Court vide Order dated 08.12.2025, directed the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records, Mandya, to conduct survey and to file a report before this Court in respect of the subject land is concerned. Pursuant to the same, the ADLR, Mandya, has conducted survey on 31.12.2025 and accordingly the report is filed before this court. The said report is disputed by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. However,

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:25554 WP No. 34121 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

taking into consideration that the suit in O.S.No.798/2024 is pending consideration before the Civil Court and therefore, I am of the view that, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2, providing police protection in so far as the respondent No.5 is concerned to put up the fence, cannot be interfered with, as the same is in consonance with the report filed by the ADLR before this Court. Be that as it may be, it is open for the petitioner to establish right over the property in question, in the pending suit.

¶48

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶49

7. Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶50

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶51

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Gaddegowda B G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaddegowda B G v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazrath Jung-E-Bahadur Sjhah Khadari Vs Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)

Sri. Somaradhya Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt.Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gangadhar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S N Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Birgade Resorts and Hotels Vs Sri Harish Kumar Oberoi