Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunatha K vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12466-DB
WA No. 352 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 352 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA K.,
S/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2. KALAPPA,
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3. SRINIVASAREDDY M.,
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Digitally signed ALL ARE RESIDING AT
by VALLI BHODANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARIMUTHU HOSKOTE TALUK,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560067.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PUNEETH CHANNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BHASKAR GOWDA N. M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12466-DB
WA No. 352 of 2025
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-562114.
3. TALUK SURVEYOR,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-562114.
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
PIN CODE-562114.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
TIRUMALASHETTYHALLI POLICE,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 PASSED IN WP No.25650/2024 AND
ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12466-DB
WA No. 352 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Puneeth Channaiah for
learned advocate Mr. N. M. Bhaskar Gowda for the appellants
and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen
Chandrashekar for the respondent-State and its authorities.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the order of learned
Single Judge dated 30.10.2024, whereby the petition came to
be dismissed by observing that there is no private interest
involved for the petitioners and that the respondent-authorities
are duty-bound to remove encroachments on the public road in
accordance with law.
3. The prayer in the main petition as advanced by the
petitioners was to consider the representation, which was in
respect of lying of pathway passing by Bodanahosahalli Village,
which is a cement concrete road. It was the case that the said
road was for movement of public and pathway was required to
be constructed by marking proper road sketch, which was not
NC: 2025:KHC:12466-DB
to affect the movement of public. It was stated in the
representation that the road was required to be constructed in
the marking on Survey No.140 by surveying the road and
construct the drainage.
4. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal noted
that only small portion of the road was metalled and that in
respect of some portion, there were encroachments done by
the third parties in respect of which the petitioners had given
representation.
4.1 Learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to observe,
"3. Further formation of the road is a matter
to be decided by the Executive authorities
depending upon the various contingencies and
under the given peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, it would not be appropriate for this
Court to issue a direction to the authorities
concerned to necessarily form the road.
However, the respondents-authorities are duty
bound to remove any encroachments on a public
road ..."
4.2 Therefore, learned Single Judge has not only given liberty
to the petitioners to approach civil Court. It was observed that
the respondents are duty bound to remove any encroachment
found on the road.
NC: 2025:KHC:12466-DB
5. The prayer was to remove the encroachment. It was
observed that any private interest is not disclosed in the case of
the petitioners. It was further observed that the petitioners
had access to their property through the road, which are
seeking to be formed and that the same was encroached.
Therefore, they were given liberty to approach the Civil Court
by initiating appropriate proceedings.
6. No case is made out to interfere with the said order which
is eminently proper and legal.
7. The appeal is meritless and it is dismissed.
As observed by the learned Single Judge, the authorities
shall take necessary actions to remove encroachment and
obstructions from the public road, which may be found in the
public road.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
