Partly allowed

Sri Nagesh C v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Feb 2026WP/38964/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to consider his representation for regularisation of a residential construction on Sy.No.59 and 60 and issuance of revenue records. The Court held eviction could not precede decision on the pending regularisation application and directed consideration within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to decide petitioner's regularisation representation dated 07.12.2015 within 30 days; interim restraint on coercive eviction until then.

Sri Nagesh C Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11932 WP No. 38964 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 38964 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAGESH C S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT CHOGONDANAHALLI, MELEKOTE CROSS, THUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST, PIN-561205

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MURALI.M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYATH, D.C. OFFICE BUILDING, BEERASANDRA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11932 WP No. 38964 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CHAPPARADAKALLU, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶20

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562110

¶21

THE CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-561203.

¶22

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER(PDO) MELEKOTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-561205

¶23

THE THASILDHAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST, PIN-561203

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R6 SRI M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION DATED 7-12-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY MEASURING EAST-WEST 30 FEET AND NORTH-SOUTH 40 FEET, CONSTRUCTED IN SY.NO.59 AND 60 OF CHOWGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, THUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST, AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER TO REGULARISE THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF PETITIONER, BY ISSUING REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:11932 WP No. 38964 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6.

¶34

Sri M.S.Devaraju, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶35

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

"a) Issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.5 to consider the application/representation dated 7-12-2015, vide Annexure-A, in respect of residential house property measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 40 feet, constructed in Sy.No.59 and 60 of Chowgondahalli village, Thubagere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural Dist, and consequently order to regularise the unauthorised construction of petitioner, by issuing revenue records in the name of petitioner and

¶37

b) Issue any other writ or orders/relief's as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering

¶39

the representation of the petitioner for regularisation and unauthorised occupation of the petitioner, an order has been passed directing petitioner to vacate the premises.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11932 WP No. 38964 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

When a representation for regularization is pending, I am of the considered opinion that without orders being passed on the said application for regularization, an order for eviction could not be passed.

¶43

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶46

ii. The concerned respondent, whether it be respondent No.5 or respondent No.6, is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.12.2015 at Annexure-A and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶47

iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶48

iv. Until such orders are passed, respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for eviction or otherwise.

¶49

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Nagesh C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagesh C 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

Mr M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Mohan Vs State of Karnataka

Mstr.Mohammed Aris Vs Assistant Director Statistics and the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths

C G Mylarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt a Dhanalakshmi Vs the Commissioner

Smt Manu M Vs the State of Karnataka