H. R. Ravi Kumar, v. The State of Karnataka

-e1e-e NC:(2026:KHC:35280( WP(No.(20183(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( e ( ( e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THDATEDATHISATHEA13 ADAYAOFAJULY,A2026A e BEFOREAe e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A20183AOFA2026A(LB-RES)A e BETWEEN:AA e A e - H.-R.-RAVI-KUMAR,- S/O-RANGARAJAIAH,-e AGED-ABOUT-42-YEARS,- e R/AT-HIREDODDAVADI,- e UREDEGERE-HOBLI,- TUMKUR-TALUK-AND-DIST.-e …PETITIONER-e (BY-SRI.-RAHUL-S.-REDDY.,-ADVOCATE)- e AND:A e A e 1.- THE-STATE-OF-KARNATAKA-REP.-BY-ITS-SECRETARY,-Digitally e signedtiby RURAL-DEVELOPMENT-AND-- VANAMALA PANCHAYAT-RAJ,-VIDHANA-SOUDHA,- N DR.AMBEDKAR-VEEDHI,- e Location: BENGALURU-560-001.- HIGH - COURT0OF

2.-THE-EXECUTIVE-OFFICER,-KARNATAKA TALUKA-PANCHAYAT,-TUMKUR---572-101.--

3.-PANCHAYAT-DEVELOPMENT--OFFICER,-OORKERE-GRAMA--PANCHAYAT,-

TUMKUR TALUK AND DIST - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KENCHE GOWDA., AGA FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THAPONTHU:KANIAA:NYA:GRAPOM: ASTHI OTTUVARI NO. 01/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE J.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the second respondent's Order dated 12.08.2025 [Annexure-J] in an Appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The second respondent, after a detailed reference to the different proceedings [including the orders by a learned District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru] has directed the cancellation of the revenue entries in favour of Sri O

C Krishnappa, son of Chikarangaiah for the land in Survey No. 94/1 of Oorukere Village1 within the limits of Oorukere Grama Panchayat.

Sri Rahul S Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with this order because, as of the date of the impugned order, Sri O C Krishnappa had transferred an extent of 1 acre in this survey number in favour of the petitioner but he is not made a party, and that the second respondent, without a detailed enquiry and an opportunity to the petitioner, could not have opined that there is any encroachment of land reserved for allotment of sites to persons from the marginal section of the Society.

Sri Kenche Gowda, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first respondent, is heard on whether this Court must

1 The total extent of land in Survey No. 94/1, measures 2 acres 12 guntas

interfere with the second respondent's order and if not, the terms upon which the petition must be disposed of. This Court will not intervene if factual assertions are to be cross verified, however, the petitioner complains of lack of opportunity, and this offers a reason for this Court's interference. The grievance in this regard could be addressed if the petition is disposed of observing that, in the peculiarities, the petitioner must be at liberty to file an application for an opportunity to justify recall of the impugned order and for a decision on merits after hearing him. Hence, the following.

ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of without disturbing the impugned order with liberty to the petitioner to make an application for recalling the impugned order as now permitted by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

[B] The second respondent upon receipt of such application shall inform the petitioner about the date of first appearance and decide on merits after issuing notice to all the concerned.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-