[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri T V Rudresha vs The Principal Secretary on 27 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
WA No. 1702 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T.V.RUDRESHA
S/O VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SRI. T.V. JAGADISH
S/O VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT
TIPPUR VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK , TUMKUR DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 572 130.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. RAMESH B, ADVOCATE FOR
by SRI. KUMAR S J, ADVOCATE)
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
SUSHMA AND:
LAKSHMI
Location: High
Court of 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRECARTY
Karnataka
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL
PIN CODE - 572 130.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
WA No. 1702 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA
SON OF THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
5. SRI. LAXMAN
SON OF THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
6. SRI. BETTASWAMY GOWDA
SON OF LATE BEGURAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
7. SRI CHANNATHIMMAIAH
SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R4 TO R7 ARE RESIDING AT
TIPPUR VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 572 130.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. S R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7;
R4-R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.10.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE
WP No.17804/2019, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEFS, AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
TO GRANT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
WA No. 1702 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present appeal has been filed impugning the
judgment and order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17804/2019 filed by the
appellants.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the writ court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of 2 acres 20
guntas of land in Survey No.4/6 of Vaderekatte Kaval Village,
Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The petitioners
disputed the village map wherein 28 feet wide cart road, which
runs through the property of the petitioners, was shown in the
village map. The petitioners had moved an application before
the revenue authorities for correction of the village map. On
such application having been filed by the petitioners, the
Additional Director of Land Records (for short 'ADLR') had
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
HC-KAR
inspected the site and prepared a report. The ADLR, on
inspection, found that 28 feet wide cart road existed even prior
to the independence and that continues to be in existence. The
petitioners' objection to the village map was rejected by the
Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on
the basis of the report of the ADLR. These orders passed by
the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
were challenged by the petitioners before the learned Single
Judge.
3(i) Learned Single Judge, having recorded the finding
that, as per the report of the ADLR, a 28 feet wide cart road
existed even prior to Independence, found that there was no
error in the village map. The said road was used by the
villagers to access their neighbouring properties as well as a
connecting road.
3(ii) The contention of the petitioners that there is a
metal road which is being used by the villagers and that a 28
feet wide cart road did not exist was not accepted.
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
HC-KAR
4. The finding regarding the correctness of the village
map is based on the spot inspection of the ADLR, who has
categorically stated in his report that a 28 feet wide cart road
has been existing since time immemorial which has been used
by the villagers to access the neighbouring properties. It
appears that the petitioners have assimilated the said road into
their land.
5. Having considered that the question involved is a
disputed question of fact and that the findings of the Deputy
Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are based
on the spot inspection report of the ADLR, we do not see any
reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that liberty may be reserved to the appellants to approach the
revenue authority for appropriate relief. The said liberty is
reserved.
NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB
HC-KAR
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications do not survive for consideration and the same are
also disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
