Disposed

Mr G U Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WP/34794/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider a representation dated 29.09.2025 for survey and enquiry. The respondents filed a statement of objections enclosing an endorsement dated 04.09.2026, which showed that the representation had been considered and the petitioner was called for a joint DGPS survey with the Revenue and Mines departments to identify boundary marks and sign a joint Mahazar report. The court held the petition infructuous and disposed of it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; no writ issued.

Mr G U Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50486-DB WP No. 34794 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010755622025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

AND

¶10

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 34794 OF 2025 (GM-MM-S)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MR. G.U. KIRAN S/O LATE G. UMAPATHI

¶13

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶14

DOOR NO 4670/4, SIDDESHWARA SADANA 4^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, S.S. LAYOUT, 'B' BLOCK

¶15

DAVANAGERE - 570 001

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

(BY SRI TARUN MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶21

VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶22

DEPUTY DIRECTOR THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶23

#49, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶24

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:50486-DB WP No. 34794 of 2025

¶27

CNR: KAHC010755622025

¶28

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT ZILLADALITHA BHAVANA PLOT NO.77 KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA OLD P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE - 577 006

¶29

SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2025 GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS MAKING A REQUISITION FOR SURVEY AND ENQUIRY (ANNEXURES-A & B) & ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶35

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶38

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying

¶39

as under:

¶40

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Representation dated 29.09.2025 given to the Respondents

¶41

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50486-DB WP No. 34794 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010755622025

¶44

making a requisition for survey and enquiry (ANNEXURE- A & B);

¶45

b) Issue any other writ/s/order/s/direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

¶46

The learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the statement of objections, enclosing therewith an endorsement dated 04.09.2026, a plain reading of which indicates that the issue has been considered and the petitioner has been called upon to conduct a joint DGPS Survey along with the land survey, Revenue, and Mines and Geology Department, to identify the boundary marks and sign the joint Mahazar (spot-inspection) report confirming the boundary marks so identified.

¶47

In view of the above, the present petition is rendered infructuous and accordingly is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶50

SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Mr G U Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G U Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases