SRI DHARMA PRAKASH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.24131 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI DHARMA PRAKASH
S/O LATE C.D. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHONNEHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK – 573201
HASSAN DISTRICT
NAVA KARNATAKA PRAJA PRAGATHI, SENE,
OPP. TANVITHRISHA MANTAPA,
TH
JAI MARUTHI ROAD, 4 CROSS,
KARIBAREESHWARA TILES AND SANITARY BUILDING,
CHIKKONAHALLI, VIDYANAGAR,
HASSAN – 573201
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PRESIDENT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN – 573201.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
3. THE SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE,
HASSAN,
HASSAN DISTRICT – 573201.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
TOWN CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573103.
5. SMT. SUJATHA,
W/O MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR,
HASSAN – 573201.
6. SRI. VINOD,
S/O DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKAHONNENNAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIDYANAGAR,
HASSAN – 573201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. RAVISHANKAR A., ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
SRI. P.S. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 TO
CONSIDER THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2025 ANNEXURE–B AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following prayers:
“a. Issue writ of mandamus directing the
Respondent No.3 and 4 to consider the letter dated
03/03/2025 Annexure-B.
b. Grant such other relief or relief’s as this
Honourable Court be pleased to allow the application
as prayed for therein, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
Brief facts:
2. The petitioner claims that the land bearing Survey No.52
measuring 20 guntas of Chikkahonenahalli Village, Hassan District
[ schedule property ] belongs to his family and that nine sites were
formed therein pursuant to a sketch dated 02.11.1978, followed by
registration of E-katha in favour of the petitioner and his family
members. It is asserted that the petitioner and his family members
are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.5 and 6, who have no
right, title or interest over the schedule property, having illegally
encroached upon Site No.6 and erected pillars thereon. It is further
alleged that respondent Nos.5 and 6 assaulted and threatened the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
petitioner compelling him to institute O.S. No.651/2025 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Hassan seeking relief of permanent
injunction.
3. It is further contended that the Civil Court is stated to have
granted an order of temporary injunction restraining respondent
Nos.5 and 6 from trespassing upon the schedule property, however
notwithstanding the order of temporary injunction respondent Nos.5
and 6 have illegally trespassed upon the schedule property on
21.01.2025. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 25.02.2025 to respondent No.2 Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan, seeking appropriate action against
respondent Nos.5 and 6 and removing of the pillars allegedly
erected upon the property.
4. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued a communication
dated 03.03.2025 forwarding the grievance to the concerned police
and municipal authorities for appropriate action. It is further stated
that respondent No.4-Municipal Authority issued endorsement
dated 25.03.2025 calling upon the concerned private parties to
furnish relevant documents in support of their claims over the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
disputed properties within seven days. A further communication
dated 26.03.2025 was also issued by the Office of Deputy
Commissioner to the Municipal Authority concerning the petitioner's
grievance, and alleging that no effective action had been taken.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the
aforesaid reliefs.
5. It is evident that the dispute essentially pertains to the
alleged encroachment upon the private property and interference
with the petitioner's possession by respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Admittedly, the petitioner has already instituted O.S. No.651/2025
before the Civil Court. Thus, the dispute concerning possession
and alleged interference is already subject matter of adjudication
before the jurisdictional Civil Court.
6. It is relevant to note that communication dated 03.03.2025
issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Hassan upon
which the petitioner places reliance, is in the nature of
administrative communication, calling upon the certain authorities
to take appropriate action on the grievance raised by the petitioner.
The said communication cannot, by itself be construed as an
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
adjudication of the respective rights of the parties over the disputed
property or a final determination that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have
encroached upon the same.
7. It is pertinent to note, pursuant to the aforesaid
communication, the municipal authorities have issued endorsement
dated 25.03.2025 calling upon the concerned parties to produce
the relevant documents. Thus, the material placed on record
indicates that the grievance of the petitioner has received
consideration at the hands of authorities.
8. Whether the structures complained of constitute an
encroachment upon the petitioner's property is a matter involving
disputed question and competing claims of the parties, which
cannot appropriately be determined in the present proceedings.
9. More importantly, when the petitioner has already availed
himself of the remedy before the competent Civil Court, any further
grievance is required to be adjudicated before the very Court by
invoking remedies available in law. The petitioner cannot seek in
the present proceedings, enforcement to remove the alleged
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59050
WP No. 24131 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010491682025
encroachment, particularly when the rights of the contesting private
parties are yet to be finally adjudicated.
10. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that no case is made out for issuance of a writ of mandamus in the
manner sought by the petitioner. It is however open to the
petitioner to work out his remedy before the jurisdictional Civil
Court and seek appropriate relief.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the rival claims concerning title, possession or
alleged encroachment upon the schedule property. Accordingly,
dismissed
the writ petition stands , reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available in law before
the competent Civil Court.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23