SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.33674 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
S/O RUDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT KUPPEMALA VILLAGE
SOLURU HOBLI
THEN MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY
HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT. GANGARATHNA
W/O RAVIKUMAR P.
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
TH
RESIDING AT NO.5, 4 CROSS,
BANAGIRI NAGARA,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE
BENGALURU -560085.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. THYAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA-562159
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA-562159.
3. THE THASILDAR
MAGADI TALUK MAGADI-562120
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
4.
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
SOLURU HOBLI-572127
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
5.
THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BITTASANDRA CIRCLE
SOLURU HOBLI-572127
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
5. SUMITHRA
W/O GANGADHARAIAH M.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT KUPPEMALA VILALGE
SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
6. CHAITHRA G.
W/O SUJAY KUMAR B.S.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TH
R/AT 120, 16 WARD,
WEAVERS COLONY,
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
7.
B.C. MANOHAR
S/O G.R. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT BITTASANDRA VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
8.
B. SHANKAR
S/O BALAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BITTASANDRA VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
9. NARASIMAIAH
S/O BAILAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT BITTASANDRA VILLAGE
MAGADI TALUK
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.
10. MANJUNATH
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.1021,
SHANTHINAGARA LAYOUT,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
ARASINAKUNTE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2026 PASSED IN REV. APPEAL
NO.326/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.
RMGAC-LND/LND/6/2023 (COMPUTER NO.171310) DATED
ST
14.08.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-P, ISSUED BY THE 1
RESPONDENT; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
ORAL ORDER
1. The learned Additional Government Advocate
accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. Heard Sri. Thyagaraj S., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Shamanth Naik,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent-State, and Sri. R. Shashidhara,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
order dated 22.10.2026 (Annexure-Q) passed in
Appeal No. 326/2025 on the file of the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal and the order dated 14.08.2025
(Annexure-P) issued by respondent No. 1.
4. Sri. Thyagaraj S., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that the land in question was
granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further
contended that, based on an incorrect report
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
submitted by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2,
the respondent-authorities are laying a public road
through the land belonging to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the learned counsel seeks interference by
this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 6, submitted that the
petitioner has not produced the relevant documents to
establish that the land in Sy. No. 22 of Kuppemala
Village, Magadi Taluk, was granted in his favour.
Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.6 sought dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional
Government Advocate, referring to paragraph 13 of
the impugned order passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, sought dismissal of the writ
petition.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, a perusal of
paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order passed
by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal would indicate
1/2
that an extent of 0.08 guntas of land has been
identified for the purpose of constructing a public road
to enable the farmers and their agricultural
implements to access their lands, having regard to the
actual movement pattern of the villagers over the land
in question.
8. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is
claiming rights over the property based on the grant
made in the year 2007. However, the petitioner has
not taken steps for conducting phodi and durast in
respect of the land in question.
9. In that view of the matter, taking into
consideration paragraph 13 of the impugned order
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60769
WP No. 33674 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010740662026
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, I am of
the opinion that no interference is called for in this
writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to
establish his right over the property, particularly since
the respondent-authorities have doubted the
genuineness of the grant made in his favour.
Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the
competent authority and seek redressal of his
grievance by establishing his rights over the property.
dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition stands .
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32