SRI.CHARAN A.R. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 25 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 29698 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.CHARAN A.R.
S/O LATE RAJENDRAGOWDA.A.
GRAND SON OF LATE ARASAPPA.K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. SRI. SHIVARAM.A.
S/O LATE K. ARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562129.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MURALI BABU M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE-1.
REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
2. THE TAHASILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
3. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER (PDO) GIDDAPPANAHALLI
GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE
GIDDAPPANAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
4. THE PRESIDENT
GIDDAPPANAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE
GIDDAPPANAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEETING PROCEEDINGS
RESOLUTIONS DATED 12.07.2022 AND 31.10.2022
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ANNEXURE-C;
B) DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO
CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIONS
DATED 13/14-08.2026 ANNEXURES-D AND E AND
REPRESENTATION DATED 03.09.2026 ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners assert ownership of 33 guntas
[ including 2 guntas of karab ] in Survey No.14/2 of
Attibele Village, Sulibel Hobli, Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District [ the subject property ]. The
petitioners' grievance is with the fourth respondent's
Resolutions dated 12.07.2022 and 31.10.2022. The
fourth respondent's Resolutions are to identify
certain property within specific boundary as
Gramathana and to reserve the same to allot to
persons who own no property. The petitioners
contend that the Resolutions relate to the two guntas
which is in the petitioners' occupation and that no
Resolution could have been passed without first
issuing notice to the petitioners.
2. Mr. M.S. Devaraju, a learned standing
counsel for the third and fourth respondents who is
permitted to take notice, submits [a] that the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
Resolutions are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction
under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj
and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [for short, ‘ the Act’ ], [b]
that the appellate authority, if the petitioner avails
remedy, can examine all circumstances, including
whether the Resolution relates to the land claimed by
the petitioners, and [c] that therefore this Court could
consider disposing of this petition with liberty to the
petitioners to avail such remedy.
3. Mrs. Chandini S., the learned High Court
Government Pleader who accepts notice for the first
and second respondents, is also heard in the light of
the afore examining:
Whether this Court must relegate the
petitioners to avail the alternative remedy
and if the petitioners are to be relegated to
the alternative remedy, the terms upon
which such relegation must be .
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
4. The underlying question is whether the
Resolutions relate to the land claimed by the
petitioners or it relates to a Gramathana property
available for free grant. This question is pending in a
suit instituted by the petitioners. The appellate
authority can consider the circumstances in which
the fourth respondent has passed a Resolution in the
light of the pleadings and the questions presented for
consideration in the suit. The appellate Authority
can, if the question is covered in the suit, decide
accordingly. As such, this Court is of the view that
the petitioners must be relegated to alternative
remedy.
5. The next aspect is the terms upon which
the petitioners must be relegated. This is examined in
the context of the petitioner claiming threat of
dispossession based on the impugned Resolutions
and the question of limitation. The appellate
authority will have to decide on whether the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
Resolution can justify the petitioners’ dispossession,
especially if a suit is pending, and if there is in fact
an interim order in such suit. The petitioners' case is
that they were not aware of the Resolutions and that
only when there is an attempt to disturb their
possession that they have invoked this Court's
jurisdiction. These circumstances, especially with no
third-party interest being involved, persuade this
Court to opine that there cannot be any precipitation
and the question of limitation must be reckoned with
all just exclusion and the appeal must be decided on
merits if the appeal is filed by the petitioners within
30 days from the date of this order. In the light of the
afore, the following:
ORDER
A. The petition stands disposed of relegating
the petitioners to avail alternative remedy
under Section 269 of the Act observing that
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53149
WP No. 29698 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010648922026
the limitation shall be reckoned from the
date of this order.
B. The petitioners shall not be dispossessed
based on the impugned Resolutions until
there is a final outcome in the appeal that
the petitioners may file within the time now
contemplated.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SA
Ct:sr