Sri G Mohan Raj Kumar @ G Mohan Kumar, Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI G MOHAN RAJ KUMAR @ G MOHAN KUMAR, S/O LATE A GOPALA REDDY AGE ABOUT 73 YEARS R/A NO 1383, 3^RD CROSS CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET VARTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560087.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PAVAN A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K R PURA BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 560016.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURA

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:10023 WP No. 37940 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 560016

¶21

THE SURVEYOUR BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶22

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 560016

¶23

SMT PADMAVATHI.R W/O SRI M NAGARAJU AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A VARTHUR, BEHIND OLD POLOCE STATION HALASHALLI ROAD VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK 560087.

¶24

SRI C RAMAIH REDDY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A NO 19, RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY BASAVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560037.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FIR R1 TO R4 SRI.K.ANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE 3^RD RESPONDENT IN CASE I.D NO.MUT/70/2024(B) AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.MUT/70/2024, IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS SURVEY, PHODI AND FIXATION OF BOUNDARIES IN RESPECT OF SY.NO. 160/1 OF VARTHUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:10023 WP No. 37940 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is directed towards the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 at Annexure ‘A’ passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶35

It is the contention of the petitioner that although it is true that his brother has sold 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.160/2 and 7 guntas in Sy.No.160/1, nevertheless by virtue of the said sale deed, respondent No.5 is trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner who is also the owner of Sy.No.160/1 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas including 7 guntas of kharab. In that regard, the petitioner has already filed O.S.No.2090/2025 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pura, seeking permanent injunction to restrain respondents No.5 and 6 herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. At this juncture, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent-Assistant Director of Land Records,

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10023 WP No. 37940 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Bengaluru East Taluk, to re-survey and refix the

¶39

boundaries.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if such a survey is now permitted to be conducted, it will prejudice the case of the petitioner.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records is appealable before the Joint Director of Land Records under Section 49 (f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶42

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that when a suit is filed by the aggrieved person and has raised a dispute regarding the boundaries, if not the title, the

¶43

Survey Settlement Authorities should not interfere during

¶44

the pendency of the suit. It is always open for the parties

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10023 WP No. 37940 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

to make an application before the Civil Court to seek such

¶48

directions for survey. Considering such application appropriate orders may be passed by the Civil Court, if necessary.

¶49

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 at Annexure ‘A’ passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Director of Land Records, Bengaluru East Taluk, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶50

All contentions are left open to enable the parties to make appropriate application before the court where the suit filed by the petitioner is pending consideration for the purpose of survey and settlement or the parties are required to await the outcome of the suit filed at the hands of the petitioner.

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶53

JT/-

¶54

CT: JL

Sri G Mohan Raj Kumar @ G Mohan Kumar, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Mohan Raj Kumar @ G Mohan Kumar, v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Yeshodamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sreya Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivalinga Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K R Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt K Bhuvaneshwari Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gangamma Vs the State of Karnataka