Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Venu V vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3721 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3721 Kant
Judgement Date : 9 November, 2021

Karnataka High Court
Venu V vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Magadum
                         -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                      PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

     WRIT PETITION NO.15197 OF 2021 (GM-RES) PIL

BETWEEN:
1.    VENU V
      S/O VENKATESHAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      R/AT WARD NO.2, TIPPUSULTAN ROAD
      POOJAMMANAPALYA
      DEVANAHALLI TOWN
      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
      PIN - 562 110

2.    VENKATESH
      S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
      R/AT NO.1, GORIPALYA
      TALUK OFFICE ROAD
      DEVANAHALLI TOWN
      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

3.    HARSHAVARDHAN
      S/O SRINIVASA
      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
      R/AT NO.25, WARD NO.1
      KORACHARA BEEDI, GORIPALYA
      DEVANAHALLI TOWN
      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
      PIN - 562 110
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RADHANANDAN B.S, ADVOCATE)
                          -2-



AND:
1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE - 560 001

2.   THE KARNATAKA LAKE CONSERVATION
     AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
     NO.49, CHURCH STREET, 2ND FLOOR
     PARISARA BHAVAN
     BANGALORE - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     ZILLAADALITHA BHAVANA
     BEERASANDRA
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     DEVANAHALLI - 562 110

4.   SMT. SUNANDA
     W/O LATE SHIVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/AT SHANTHINAGAR
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     DEVANAHALLI
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
     PIN - 562 110
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(SRI RAJASHEKAR S, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3
 SRI V.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2
 SRI NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
 NO.4)
                         ---
       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE
                              -3-



THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS WATER BODY, FREE OF ALL
ENCUMBRANCES, SINCE THE SAME IS VESTED WITH THE
STATE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

In this public interest litigation, the petitioner is

seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or order or Direction, by directing the Respondents to restore the Schedule Property as water body, free of all encumbrances, since the same is vested with the State, in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction, by directing the Respondents to rejuvenate as Schedule Property as water body by properly fencing the same, in the interest of justice."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4

has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability

of the writ petition on the ground that the controversy

involved in the instant writ petition has been decided vide

judgment and order dated 30.11.2009 passed in Writ

Petition No.12126/2008(LR-PIL) (V.S.MURALI AND OTHERS

vs. N.SHIVANNA AND OTHERS). The earlier public interest

litigation was filed against the husband of respondent No.4.

3. A copy of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2009

has been placed before us. The same is taken on record.

4. On a perusal of the order dated 30.11.2009, we find

that the husband of respondent No.4 had filed Form 7

seeking grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal by

the order dated 12.10.1997 was pleased to confer

occupancy rights in favour of the husband of respondent

No.4. The said order has attained finality. If the grant of

occupancy rights in favour of husband of respondent No.4

has attained finality and the same is examined and dealt

with in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner cannot

be permitted to re-agitate the same issue on same cause of

action in the present writ petition which is in the form of a

public interest litigation. This relevant aspect has been

taken note by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No.12126/2008

(LR-PIL).

5. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to

keep this matter pending. The writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter