SRI H M JAGADEESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 27747 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI H M JAGADEESH
S/O LATE H S MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO. 1, NEAR TO ESHWARA TEMPLE
NADANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, ALANAHALLI POST
MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 028.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANDA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE MYSURU URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD
K G KOPPAL,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA
CHAMARAJAPURA,
MYSURU - 570 005
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2025 AT ANNEXURE-P
AND FURTHER, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
ALLOT THE ALTERNATIVE SITES IN LIEU OF ILLEGAL
UTILIZATION OF THE LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 26
GUNTAS OUT OF TOTAL EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 11
GUNTAS IN SY. NO. 60/3 OF NADANAHALLI VILLAGE
UNDER THE RATIO OF 50:50.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner asserts ownership of land
measuring 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy. No.60/3 of
Nadanahalli Village, Mysuru, and the petitioner
asserts this interest along with his family members.
The petitioner seeks directions to the second
respondent to consider his representation and allot
alternative sites to compensate the petitioner and his
family members for utilising 26 guntas out of 1 acre
11 guntas in Sy. No.60/3 of Nadanahalli Village,
Mysuru [ the subject land] for formation of a ‘ Road’ .
2. The petitioner asserts that the second
respondent except forming the ‘ Road’ in the subject
land has not formed any site and that the
corresponding layout approval plan also vindicates
the petitioner's case. Sri K Ananda, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits the following in
support of the petitioner's case for directions as
aforesaid.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
[A] The subject land was notified for acquisition for
formation of a ‘ Road’ but such Notification is
quashed insofar as the petitioner/his family
members’ land in the writ petition in W.P.
No.24248/2005 on 07.01.2009 with liberty to
the second respondent to initiate acquisition
proceedings after a Scheme is approved.
[B] There is no approval after this Court's order,
and in view of the interference despite this
Court's orders, the petitioner's mother, Smt
Rajamma, has filed a suit in O.S. No.235/2006
which is decreed on 10.04.2012.
[C] The second respondent's officials thereafter
have formed a ‘Road’ in the subject land
without utilizing the remaining extent. The
extent of the subject land and the extent used
for formation of ‘ Road’ is as per the following
sketch.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
[D] The second respondent has allotted sites to
similarly situated persons but when the
petitioner has approached with a request, a
Zonal Officer with the second respondent has
issued the Communication dated 12.07.2023
stating that there is no development whatsoever
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
in the subject land notwithstanding the
formation of ‘ Road’ as aforesaid.
3. Sri K Ananda is categorical in his
submissions in stating that neither the petitioner nor
his family members object to the utilisation of the
land measuring 26 guntas in the subject land for
formation of the ‘Road’ as afore and the
petitioner/his family members' claim is only limited
to being compensated with the allotment of sites
corresponding to the extent that is utilised.
4. Sri G B Sharath Gowda, the learned
counsel for the second respondent, submits that if
the petitioner confines his prayer to the request for
alternative allotment of sites without contesting the
utilisation of the extent in the subject land for
formation of ‘Road’ , this Court could consider
disposing of the petition directing the second
respondent to call for all information from the
petitioner and decide on whether the petitioner is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
entitled for sites as now claimed subject to
verification of the petitioner's case that the subject
land is not utilized for any purpose except for
formation of ‘Road’ . On the Zonal Officer's
Communication dated 12.07.2023, Sri G B Sharath
Gowda submits that this Communication could be
after inspection of the subject land, but the learned
counsel cannot dispute that the Communication
dated 12.07.2023, which must indicate inspection
and a Report to affirm that the subject land is not
utilized even for formation of a ‘Road’, does not
mention such inspection or report.
5. The petitioner admits utilization of the
subject land for formation of ‘Road’, but if the
Authority has issued a Communication without due
regard to the process that must be followed, such
approach undermines the rule of law. Further, this
Court is of the considered view that if the petition
could be disposed of in the light of the submissions
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
by Sri G B Sharath Gowda, there must also be a
direction to the second respondent to call for records
from the concerned Zonal Officer to verify whether
the subject land was visited and a Report filed before
issuing the Communication dated 12.07.2023 and
that if the concerned Zonal Officer has failed in
inspecting or filing a Report, or in issuing
communication contrary to the circumstances
available on the subject land, the second respondent
must necessarily initiate proceedings as would be
permissible. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER
[a] The petition stands disposed of
reserving liberty to the petitioner to
file a certified copy of this order and
a Representation for allotment of
sites in lieu of the subject land which
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
the petitioner asserts has been
utilised for formation of ‘Road’ .
[b] The petitioner will be at liberty to file
a certified copy of this Order and the
representation within two [2] weeks
from the date of receipt thereof.
[c] The second respondent is directed to
call for detailed information on the
utilisation of the subject land and
verify whether similarly situated
persons have been allotted sites and
then decide on the petitioner's
representation within three [3]
months from the date of receipt of
the representation.
[d] The second respondent, as part of
the afore consideration, shall also
secure Report from the office of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:50769
WP No. 27747 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010610932026
Zonal Office, Mysuru Urban
Development Authority, Mysuru
relating to the internal
communication dated 12.07.2023
and act in terms of this Court's
observation if there is cause for the
same.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-