Disposed¶50

Sri. Intiyaz Pasha @ Babu v. the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026WP/7092/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: tamarind trees; road side trees; public auction; hakkudar; release deed 03.11.1997; Tahsildar endorsement 15.05.1958; R/4-244/57-58; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; Tahasildar Chintamani Taluk; Range Forest Officer Srinivaspura Taluk; Kolar-Chintamani road; Sugaturu; GM-FOR; Karnataka High Court 2026. Relevant for: claims of private/parties' rights in Government roadside trees versus public auction by revenue/forest authorities; writ petitions where the petitioner cannot identify the statutory provision creating the asserted vested right; disposal of petition with liberty to participate in auction.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to participate in the public auction to be conducted, if any, by the respondent-authorities; the sought mandamus for annual removal of tamarind was not granted.

Sri. Intiyaz Pasha @ Babu Vs the Tahasildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to participate in the public auction to be conducted, if any, by the respondent-authorities; the sought mandamus for annual removal of tamarind was not granted.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has a legally enforceable vested right in the 36 tamarind trees (claimed to derive from the 1958 acknowledgement of the original planter and the 1997 release deed in favour of his father) such that the proposed public auction would adversely affect his interest. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

On a specific query by the Court, counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision of law which creates a vested right in favour of the purported original hakkudar or his legal representatives to execute the release deed, or any such right in favour of the petitioner.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the public auction to be conducted, if any, by the respondent-authorities.

¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by Intiyaz Pasha @ Babu seeking (i) records of file R/4-244/57-58 dated 07.04.1958 from the Tahasildar, Chintamani Taluk, and (ii) mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 (Tahasildar, Chintamani Taluk; Range Forest Officer, Srinivaspura Taluk) to permit him annually to remove tamarind from 36 roadside tamarind trees on the Kolar-Chintamani road via Sugaturu (54 trees east side and 36 trees west side between the 26th and 27th kilometre stones). The petitioner traced his claim to trees planted by one Venkatachalapathi Shetty on Government land, acknowledged by the then Tahsildar's endorsement dated 15.05.1958, and to a release deed dated 03.11.1997 executed by Shetty's legal heirs in favour of the petitioner's father; he feared a public auction of the trees by the authorities. On the Court's specific query, counsel was unable to point out any provision of law creating the claimed vested right or any right in the petitioner; the AGA submitted that the petitioner was free to participate in the contemplated public auction and, if found eligible, his rights would be considered. M.G.S. Kamal J. disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the public auction, if any, to be conducted by the respondent-authorities in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25400 WP No. 7092 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7092 OF 2023 (GM-FOR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. INTIYAZ PASHA @ BABU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER SAB, RESIDING AT SONNASHETTYHALLI, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 13^TH BLOCK, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 325.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ANGADI SOMASHEKAR CHANNABASAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 325.

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SRINIVASPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 325.

¶17

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

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:25400 WP No. 7092 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO R/4-244/57-58, DTD 07.04.1958 FROM R-1 OFFICE.DIRECTING R-1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER FOR REMOVAL OF TAMARIND FROM 36 TAMARIND TREES EXISTING ON 26^TH AND 27^TH KMS. 3/1 FURLING STONE TO ONE MILE STONE I.E., 5 FURLONG TO BOTH SIDES 54 TAMARIND TREES TO EAST SIDE AND 36 TAMARIND TREES ON WEST SIDE OF KOLAR CHINTAMANI ROAD VIA SUGATURU TO CHINTAMANI FROM THE ROAD SIDE TREES EVERY YEAR.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶28

'' A) To call for records pertaining to R/4-244/57-58, dated 0704-1958 from 1^st respondent office.

¶29

B) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner for removal of tamarind from 36 tamarind trees existing on 26^th and 27^th Kms. 3/1 furlong stone to one mile stone i.e., 5 furlong to both sides 54 tamarind trees to East Side and 36 tamarind trees on west side of Kolar Chintamani Road via Sugaturu to Chintamani from the road side trees every year.

¶30

C) To issue any other order or orders deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶31

2. It is the case of petitioner that originally one Sri.

¶32

Venkatachalapathi Shetty had planted 36 tamarind trees on a

¶33

Government land, which was acknowledged by the then Tahsildar by issuance of an endorsement dated 15.05.1958 and

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:25400 WP No. 7092 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

had also permitted said Sri. Venkatachalapathi Shetty to enjoy

¶38

the fruits of the said trees.

¶39

3. It is further contented that legal heirs of the said Sri. Venkatachalapathi Shetty had executed release deed on 03.11.1997 in favour of the father of the petitioner herein, to derive the benefit of reaping the fruits of the said 36 tamarind trees.

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid facts indicate rights being vested with the original hakkudar, which his legal representatives have rightfully transferred in favour of the father of the petitioner herein.

¶41

5. He further submits that things being thus, respondentauthorities now intended to conduct the public auction in respect of said tamarind trees which would adversely affect the interest of the petitioner.

¶42

6. On a specific query by this Court, counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the provision of law which creates vested right in favour of the purported original hakkudar or his legal representatives to execute such release

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:25400 WP No. 7092 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

deed and any such right being created in favour of the petitioner.

¶47

7. At this juncture, learned AGA submits that petitioner has every right and all liberty to participate in the public auction which will be undertaken by the respondent-authorities in accordance with law, if he is found eligible, his rights will be considered.

¶48

8. Submissions taken on record.

¶49

9. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to participate in the public auction to be conducted, if any, by the respondent-

¶50

authorities, petition is disposed of .

¶51

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. Intiyaz Pasha @ Babu v. the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Intiyaz Pasha @ Babu v. the Tahasildar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Aditya Manojrao Ghantewar Vs State of Karnataka

C N Vijaykumar Vs State of Karnataka

Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishweshwara Bhat Nettar Vs Sri P Amarnatha Shetty

Smt Rajamma H R Vs M/S Bharath Petroleum Corpn Ltd.