Dismissed

Sri Sriramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/37291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a memorandum issued to vacate land allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The Court held that the impugned order did not call for interference as the petitioner failed to fully establish his title.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed; the petitioner was directed to establish title before the competent forum.

Sri Sriramappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.37291 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SRIRAMAPPA S/O LATE SEETHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUDISALAHALLI VILLAGE, MURUGAMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶20

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR KENCHARLAHALLI POLICE STATION, KENCHARLAHALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶21

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MINDIGAL VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, MIDIGAL, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED IN NO.N.C.R/CR/80/202526, DATED 15.11.2025 ISSUED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT TAHASHILDAR TO VACATE THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.39, MEASURING 0-5 GUNTAS OUT OF 6 ACRES 18 GUNTAS, WHICH COME IN 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS BELONGS TO THIS PETITIONER, SITUATED AT GUDISALAHALLI VILLAGE, MURUGAMALLA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri. Prakasha M., learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the petitioner; Smt. B.P.Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondentState and Sri. A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

¶32

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the memorandum dated 15.11.2025

¶33

(Annexure–G) issued by Respondent No. 4-Thasildar.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶35

that the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that a portion of the said land is proposed to be utilized for the construction of a Milk dairy at Gudisalahalli Village, Murugamalla Hobli, Chintamani Taluk. It is further contended that the respondents, under the guise of providing land for the

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

construction of a milk booth, are interfering with the property belonging to the petitioner. Accordingly, interference of this Court is sought.

¶39

Per contra, Smt. B.P.Radha, learned

¶40

Additional Government Advocate for the respondentState, referring to the records produced along with the writ petition, submits that the grant said to have been made in favour of the petitioner is itself questionable, as the relevant grant records have not been produced in their entirety. She therefore disputes the claim of the petitioner over the land in question.

¶41

Upon careful consideration of the writ

¶42

papers, this Court finds that the Saguvali Chit produced by the petitioner does not contain complete particulars of the land allegedly granted in his favour. No schedule of property is found in the grant

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

certificate so as to identify the exact extent and boundaries of the land claimed by the petitioner.

¶46

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned memorandum dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure–G) does not call for

¶47

interference. The material on record indicates that the respondents intend to identify the land and remove encroachments, if any, for the purpose of constructing a building to be utilized as a milk dairy.

¶48

If the petitioner claims any right, title or

¶49

interest over the property in question, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before the competent forum in accordance with law. It is also open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available in

¶50

law in respect of the land proposed to be utilized for the construction of the milk booth referred to in the

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:28486 WP No. 37291 of 2025

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

impugned memorandum. Accordingly, the writ petition

¶55

stands dismissed .

¶56

In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending applications if any stand disposed of.

¶57

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶58

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Sriramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sriramappa 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

Sri Narasingappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Murthy N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sukumar N Rao Vs the Assistant Director of

Chinnaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.a.S.Mani @ a.Susai Mani Vs the State of Karnataka

H. P. Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka