Disposed¶40

Prasanna Kumar K G, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/36393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition disposed; Article 226; writ court cannot decide disputed questions of fact; alleged encroachment of government Gomala land Sy.No.26 Kiragandur Mandya; unlicensed brick factory; Induvalu Gram Panchayat; liberty to approach Civil Court; three-week restraint on precipitative action; no opinion on merits; pending I.As. disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty reserved to respondent no.6 to approach the appropriate Civil Court; respondents 1 to 5 restrained from taking precipitative action against respondent no.6 for three weeks, after which they may act if no interim order is obtained from the trial Court; pending I.As. disposed of. ¶40

Prasanna Kumar K G, Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.6 has encroached upon government land and put up a brick factory without obtaining the necessary licence and plan sanction. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

As a general proposition, no person has a right to encroach upon government land and put up construction, and no person can run an industry without obtaining the necessary licence and permissions in accordance with law.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

In view of disputed questions of fact as to ownership and licensing, this Court, exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the disputed questions of facts.

¶39

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to respondent no.6 to approach the appropriate Civil Court in accordance with law and work out his remedies, and respondents 1 to 5 are directed not to initiate any precipitative action against respondent no.6 for a period of three weeks.ratio¶40
It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits, including ownership of the property or whether respondent no.6 has obtained the required permissions and licences; any suit filed by him will be decided by the trial Court on pleadings and evidence, and if he does not obtain interim orders from the trial Court within three weeks, respondents 1 to 5 are at liberty to initiate appropriate action against him in the manner known to law.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LB-RES), High Court of Karnataka (M.I. Arun, J.), 1 April 2026: Petitioner alleged that respondent no.6 encroached upon government (Gomala) land in Sy.No.26 and ran a brick factory without licence or plan sanction. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 (Induvalu Gram Panchayat and its PDO) submitted that respondent no.6 had built a brick factory on government property and that suitable removal action would be initiated, while respondent no.6 claimed ownership. Holding that the writ court under Article 226 cannot decide disputed questions of fact as to ownership and licensing, the Court disposed of the petition, reserved liberty to respondent no.6 to seek remedies before the appropriate Civil Court, and directed respondents 1 to 5 not to take precipitative action for three weeks; failing interim orders from the trial Court within that period, they may initiate appropriate action. No opinion was expressed on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:17824 WP No. 36393 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 36393 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRASANNA KUMAR K.G. S/O LATE K.M.GADDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT: #121, DUDDA HOBALI MANDYA TALUK, KIRAGANDUR KIRAGANDUR KRISHNARAJPET MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571 403.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401.

¶16

TAHSILDAR MANDYA TALUK

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17824 WP No. 36393 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶20

INDUVALU GRAM PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT HINDUVALU, B.M.ROAD KIRGANDUR, MANDYA-571 403.

¶21

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER INDUVALU GRAM PANCHAYAT HINDUVALU, BM ROAD KIRGANDUR, MANDYA-571 403.

¶22

SIDDARAJU

¶23

S/O LATE K.K.PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KIRAGANDUR MANDYA-571 403.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY RESPONDENT NO.6 IN SY.NO.26 AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:17824 WP No. 36393 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The writ petition is filed by making an allegation against respondent no.6 that he has encroached upon government land and has put up a brick factory without obtaining necessary license and plan sanction.

¶34

Respondent no.6 categorically submits that the property belongs to him.

¶35

However, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 upon instructions, submits that respondent no.6 has put up a brick factory on the government property (Gomala Land) and suitable action will be initiated against respondent no.6 to have the same removed. He further submits that no license has been issued in favour of respondent no.6, but he is not sure about the same.

¶36

No person has a right to encroach upon government land and put up construction. Further, no person can run an industry without obtaining necessary license and permissions in accordance with law.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:17824 WP No. 36393 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

However, in the instant case, there are disputed question of facts as to ownership and whether the respondent no.6 has the necessary license and permissions or not. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot decide the disputed question of facts.

¶40

Hence, the writ petition is hereby disposed of reserving the liberty to respondent no.6 to approach appropriate Civil Court in accordance with law and work out his remedies. Respondent nos.1 to 5 are directed not to initiate any precipitative action against respondent no.6 for a period of three weeks from today.

¶41

However, it is hereby clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case including the ownership of the property or with regard to whether respondent no.6 has obtained any permissions and licenses as required in the law to run a brick factory and if a suit were to be filed by him before the trial Court, the same would be decided by the trial Court based upon the pleadings and the evidence let in before it. If respondent no.6 does not obtain any interim orders in his favour from the trial Court within the said period of three weeks

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:17824 WP No. 36393 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

from today, respondent nos.1 to 5 are at liberty to initiate appropriate action against respondent no.6 in the manner known to law.

¶46

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶48

PGG

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Prasanna Kumar K G, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Kumar K G, v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri S Ashwath Narayan Rao, Vs the Mysuru City Corporation

R Vinodh Babu Vs the Chief Commissioner

Mr Thimmarayappa Vs the Commissioner

M/S Sai Sumukha Properties Vs the Chief Commissioner