[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. K.R. Chinnakrishna vs The Deputy Commissioner on 18 March, 2026
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
WP No. 37492 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 37492 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.R. CHINNAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
S/O K. RAMACHANDRIAH,
RESIDENT OF KONGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
...PETITIONER
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka, (BY SRI. SHRINIVAS B S., ADVOCATE)
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KGF TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
KOLAR 563101
2. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
WP No. 37492 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS CRF M.G. ROAD,
VIJAYAWADA
ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS R AND B,
CHITTOOR,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, OA INDANE AREA,
UNITY BUILDING,
J.C. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027.
6. SMT. SUDAMANI
W/O Y. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND OLD CANARA BANK BUILDING,
BETHMANGALA TOWN,
BANGARPAT TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. RUKHIABI, CGC FOR R2;
SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 &
R4;
SRI. UDAY PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR
R5;
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR
ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
WP No. 37492 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC)
AT ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
FUEL STATION IN SURVEY NO 52/1 OF
MITTAKOTHUR VILLAGE, KASUMBALI HOBLI, KGF
TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AS BEING ILLEGAL
ARBITRARY AND ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, who asserts ownership of the
land in Sy.No.52/3 [Old Sy.No.52] measuring 1 acre
35 guntas of Mittakothur Village, Kasumbali Hobli,
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
HC-KAR
KGF Taluk, Kolar District ['the Subject Property'], has
called in question the No Objection Certificate [NOC]
dated 08.12.2023 issued by the jurisdictional
Commissioner in favour of the sixth respondent for
establishing a Retail Fuel Station. This Court, on
30.12.2025, has granted an interim order because of
the interim order granted in another writ petition in
W.P.No.27084/2025.
2. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior
counsel for the sixth respondent, and Mr. R.
Subramanya, the learned counsel for the National
Highways Authority, have opposed the continuation
of the interim order emphasizing that the grant of the
interim order in another writ petition in
W.P.No.27084/2025 would not be of any significance
because the land in that writ petition is in a different
village. This Court has thereafter heard Mr. B. S.
Shrinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. Ashok Haranahalli/R. Subramanya for disposal
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
HC-KAR
of the petition and the petition is listed today for
dictation of orders.
3. Presently, Mr. B. S. Shrinivas submits
that this Court could dispose of the petition with
liberty to the petitioner to pursue the application filed
by him for Hadbast of the subject property and avail
permissible remedy as against the impugned NOC
based on the outcome of such proceedings. The
learned counsel also submits that this Court must,
given the peculiarities of the case, direct the survey
officers to decide expeditiously on the pending
application for Hadbast. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli and
Mr. R. Subramanya submit that they cannot object to
the petitioner withdrawing the petition with liberty to
pursue the application that may be filed for Hadbast,
but they contend that the petitioner cannot be
granted any liberty to challenge the NOC. They assert
that there is a pending civil suit filed by the
petitioner.
NC: 2026:KHC:15844
HC-KAR
4. If the petitioner wants to withdraw the
writ petition to pursue an application for Hadbast for
fixation of the boundaries for the subject property,
this Court must dispose of the writ petition observing
that the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the
application. However, this Court is not persuaded to
remark on the remedy that would be available to the
petitioner based on the outcome of the survey or the
hadbast or the manner in which the proceedings for
hadbast must be conducted. As such, the writ
petition stands disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to pursue the application filed for hadbast
clarifying that the pending hadbast proceedings in
itself cannot impede the running of the Retail Fuel
Outlet based on the impugned NOC.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
