Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra K vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
WP No. 2405 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2405 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA K
S/O KRISHNAPPA V,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2. VENKATESH V
S/O VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. CHOWDA REDDY L N
S/O NAREPPA,
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
4. JAGADEESH KUMAR
S/O KITTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
5. HASEN SABI
S/O MOHAMMED SAB,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
WP No. 2405 of 2024
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563135
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2. GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
NELAVANKI HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563135
REP BY ITS HEADMASTER
3. M K SURESH
S/O LATE M N KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/A NO 35/6, 38TH B CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041
4. SHASHIDHARA
S/O JAGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A NO 21-B, 3RD MAIN, 8TH BLOCK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
WP No. 2405 of 2024
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041
5. LEELAVATHAMMA
W/O L S JAGANATH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563135
6. L S JAGANATH
S/O LATE L M SUBBARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE AND POST,
NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563135
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI K. SHRIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6;
NOTICE SERVED ON R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 2 TO SAFEGUARD THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS
GIVEN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KOLAR IN
SY.NO.97/3 FOR AN EXTENT OF 0.30 GUNTAS IN
LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA
TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
WP No. 2405 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Rahul S. Reddy for the
petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate
Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned
advocate Mr. K. Shridhara for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are served and unrepresented.
2. Five petitioners have presented this petition styling it as
public interest petition. The petitioners claim to be the villagers of
Lakshmipura Village, Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluka, Kolar
District.
3. It is the inter alia contended that the land bearing Survey
Nos.92, 97/1 and 97/3 admeasuring 0.30 Guntas, 0.14 Guntas and
0.31 Guntas respectively situated at Lakshmipura Village belonged
to one Pattabhirama Rao son of late Ramappa. A gift deed was
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
executed by the said Pattabhirama in the name of the Maharaja of
Mysore on 26.05.1956 in turn, the Maharaja of Mysore authorised
the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar to accept the said gift deed.
Accordingly, the gift deed was executed. It is stated that the gift
deed was executed with an intention to establish a school for the
villagers at Lakshmipura Village. It is the further case that the
possession of the property was taken by Government Primary
School and the land has been used for playground for children
since then.
3.1 It is stated that the said Pattabhirama died long back without
leaving any legal heirs. It is further alleged that the private
respondent Nos.3 and 4 wanted to grab the property which
belonged to the school. It was stated that the registered sale deed
dated 07.04.2012 was executed although khata was not changed.
It is stated that now compound wall is also constructed surrounding
the property.
4. It was contended by learned advocate for the petitioners that
the property in question belonged to one Pattabhirama who had
executed a gift deed as stated above in the name of the Maharaja
of Mysore who authorised the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
District to accept the gift deed. It was sought to be highlighted that
the land was required to be utilised as per the intention of donee
and that, accordingly it was used as playground for the children.
4.1 It was contended that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not the
Class-I heirs of the said Pattabhirama and they, claiming to be the
Class-II heirs without any basis, executed a sale deed in respect of
the land in favour of respondent No.5 and in turn, respondent No.5
further sold a portion of the property to her husband who is
respondent No.6. It was submitted that all the respondents are in
collusion.
5. In light of the above facts pleaded and contended, it is
prayed to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1-the
State of Karnataka and respondent No.2-the Government Primary
School to protect the property in question. It is further prayed to
direct respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are private parties, not to
interfere or put up any structure over the land bearing Survey
No.97/3.
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
5.1 Along with the papers of the petition, figures on record the
copy of the registered sale deed evidencing the sale in favour of
the private respondents.
5.2 On consideration of the facts of the case and on plain
reading of the pleadings as well as the documents found on the
record of the petition, the position emerge is that what is sought to
be agitated in the petition in the name of public interest petition are
the private rights. The rights sought to be advanced are in the
nature of civil rights. Not only that the gift deed and sale deed are
executed by and amongst the private parties. The rights are
claimed and pleaded to be originating accordingly.
5.3 There is no prayer in respect of the sale deed. The
petitioners have not prayed to set aside the same. Even otherwise,
such a prayer would not be maintainable in a writ petition and the
remedy for the petitioners is to go to the Civil Court when disputed
question of fact arises.
NC: 2025:KHC:5990-DB
6. No case is made out to exercise the public interest
jurisdiction.
7. The petition is summarily dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
KPS,
