Karnataka High Court
Sri Poornesh L vs State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
WP No. 34082 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 34082 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.POORNESH L,
SON OF LAKSHMEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
VEGETABLE VENDOR, AISHWARAYA NILAYA,
BEHIND APMC MARKET, JYOTINAGAR,
CHICKMAGLUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DILIP KUMAR.L., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
Digitally
signed by BENGALURU - 01. BY ITS SECRETARY.
SUMA
Location: 2.
HIGH CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
COURT OF CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577102
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. D.K. YASHODA,
W/O. D.M. MANJEGOWDA,
AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT JYOTINAGAR POST,
DANDARMAKKI EXTENSION,
CHICKMAGLUR - 577 102.
4. D.M MANJEGOWDA,
S/O LATE. MASTEGOWDA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
WP No. 34082 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT JYOTINAGAR POST,
DANDARMAKKI EXTENSION,
CHICKMAGLUR 577102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;
SRI.M.S.RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.3 AND 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 11.11.24 (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to consider his
representation dated 11.11.2024 and to direct the respondent
No.2 to conduct public auction of a site belonging to it and he
has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to
restrain respondent Nos.3 and 4 from putting up any
construction in the schedule site/s.
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
HC-KAR
2. (i) The petitioner contends that the property
bearing assessment No.18716/21/18/1/1 lies adjacent to his
property and belongs to the respondent No.2. He alleges that
though the property belongs to the respondent No.2, the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 have created certain documents and
encroached upon the said property and are trying to put up
construction. He alleges that the officials of respondent No.2
have colluded with respondent Nos.3 and 4 and have allowed
the respondent No.3 and 4 to encroach upon the property.
(ii) He contends that the aforesaid property is a vacant
site lying between his house as well as the house of the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 bearing assessment No.21/181/22.
The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 had
auctioned various sites belonging to it and likewise, the
property bearing assessment No.18716/21/18/1/1 was also
proposed for auction on 17.08.2009. The petitioner claims that
he intended to purchase the aforesaid site at the auction.
However, the respondents Nos.3 and 4 were trying to encroach
upon the same and put up construction.
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
HC-KAR
(iii) He therefore filed a suit in OS No.283/2005 before
the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikmaglur. In the said suit, he
sought for eviction of the respondent No.3 and also for a
direction to the respondent No.2 to conduct a public auction. He
claims that the said suit was dismissed on 20.01.2015. He
claims that notwithstanding the judgment, the property in
question belongs to the CMC and therefore the respondent No.2
is bound to consider his representation and auction the
property.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
above contentions and submitted that if only the property was
brought for auction, the petitioner would have a chance to
purchase it. However, the officials of respondent No.2 in
collusion with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are allowing
respondent Nos.3 and 4 to construct on the aforesaid property.
He therefore prays that a direction be issued to respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner
dated 11.11.2024 and auction the property.
4. The writ petition is opposed by respondent Nos.3
and 4, who contends that the property bearing
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
HC-KAR
No.18716/21/18/1/1 does not belong to him but the property
purchased by him is property bearing khatha
No.18716/21/181. He therefore submits that the apprehension
of the petitioner is wholly misplaced and no direction is
warranted in this case. He also contends that he has no
objection for the respondent No.2 to take whatever action that
is needed to protect its title in the site bearing
No.18716/21/18/1/1. He contends that he is only constructing
his building on a property bearing e-khatha No.18716/21/181
and he has obtained a plan from the respondent No.2.
5. The dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 essentially relates to a property, which
purportedly belongs to the respondent No.2. The respondent
Nos.3 and 4 are claiming title to a property bearing
No.18716/21/181. The respondent No.2 has sanctioned a plan
permitting the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to construct a building
on the property bearing PID No.21-2-529-127 and assessment
No.18716/21/181. Therefore, the question whether the
property claimed by the petitioner and the property claimed by
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are one and the same, is
something that the respondent No.2 will have to decide.
NC: 2025:KHC:45273
HC-KAR
Therefore, no effective directions can be issued to the
respondent No.2 in this petition at the instance of the petitioner
particularly in the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by the
petitioner in OS No.283/2005.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition
deserves to be disposed off by directing the respondent No.2
to verify whether the plan sanctioned to the respondent No.4
relates to a property belonging to it, bearing
No.18716/21/18/1/1. If it is not, the respondents No.3 and 4
are at liberty to proceed with the construction on the property
bearing No.18716/21/181. If it is found that the respondent
Nos.3 or 4 are constructing on the property belonging to the
respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 shall take necessary
action in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
