Sri Dinesh B v Vs the State Government of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16273 WP No. 7627 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.7627 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. DINESH B.V. S/O LATE C.V. VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.1900, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA 2^ND STAGE, NEAR NEW CAMBRIDGE HIGH SCHOOL,

¶9

BENGALURU - 560 104.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:16273 WP No. 7627 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶21

AGALAKOTTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH MALENAHALLI, MADBAL HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE 5^TH RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE RESOLUTIONS PASSED OR ACTION OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER ANNEXURE-E THE PROPOSED SKETCH AND QUASH THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:16273 WP No. 7627 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he owns 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Survey No.30/1, Khata No.25, Mallenahalli Village, Madbal Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. His contention is that respondent no.5 is involved in creation of a sub-village, for which the property of the petitioner is sought to be utilized without following due process of law and without acquiring the same in the manner known to law. Hence, the writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶32

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the 5^th Respondent relating to the resolutions passed or action of any kind regarding the Schedule Property as per Annexure-E the proposed sketch and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and

¶33

(b) Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:16273 WP No. 7627 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent no.5, upon

¶38

instructions, submits that they are not aware as to the extent of land of the petitioner. However, he submits that any activities undertaken by respondent No.5 will be

¶39

carried out utilizing the property of respondent No.5 or the State. If there is a requirement for the property of any third party, then the same will be utilized only in the manner known to law after due acquisition and not otherwise. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

No person can be deprived of his right to property without following the due process of law. If the State were to utilize the private property of any individual, it needs to acquire the same in the manner known to law and after paying him the just compensation and not otherwise. If there is a dispute regarding the ownership of

¶41

the property between the petitioner and the respondents, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enquire into it and it is for the

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:16273 WP No. 7627 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

aggrieved person to approach the Civil Court in the

¶46

manner known to law.

¶47

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to utilise the property of the petitioner only in the manner known to law and not otherwise. It is hereby clarified that no finding is given in respect of 2 acres 4 guntas of land mentioned in the writ petition insofar as it relates to ownership of the said property is concerned.

¶48

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶49

hkh.

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Dinesh B v. Vs the State Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dinesh B v. Vs the State Government 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

Nagarajegowda @ Annaiah Vs the Secretary

Anmol Education Association Vs State of Karnataka

Miracle Adhouz Vs Chief Officer

Sri Hridayadithya Kalkur K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Enterprises Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Joshy Iype Vs the State of Karnataka