Karnataka High Court
WP/25279/2026 of SRI B KALLESHAPPA Vs THE COMMISSIONER on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010553522026 NC: 2026:KHC:48890 WP No. 25279 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 25279 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B KALLESHAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 25279 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI B KALLESHAPPA
S/O BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT No.141, A BLOCK,
SOG COLONY, WARD NO.31,
DAVANAGERE 577 001
2.
SRI. THIMMAPPA,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT C/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
99/A482, RAJEEVGANDHI VASATHI
YOJANE, AUTO COLONY,
DAVANAGERE 577 001
3.
SRI. ASHOK S.T,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT 256, 'B' BLOCK,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
6TH CROSS, SOG COLONY,
SRI RAM NAGARA,
DAVANAGERE 577 001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,
DAVANAGERE 577 001.
2.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DAVANAGERE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
OPPOSITE RAILWAY STATION,
DAVANAGERE 577 001.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER
DATED 02.07.2026 MADE IN MA NO.06/2026 BY THE COURT
OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE
VIDE ANNX-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
TRIAL COURT MADE ON IA II IN OS NO.989/2025 DATED
21.01.2026 BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 02.07.2026 passed in M.A. No.06/2026, whereby the order of injunction dated 21.01.2026 passed in O.S. No.989/2025 was set aside and, consequently, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was rejected.
3. The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents seeking a declaration that the 15-feet vacant space adjacent to the 30-feet road is Government property and seeking an injunction against the authorities from converting the said vacant space into sites. The trial Court, by order dated 21.01.2026, granted an order of injunction. The said order was the subject matter of M.A. No.06/2026, wherein the appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the order of injunction dated 21.01.2026 and, consequently, rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, when the land to an extent of 15 feet adjacent to the 30-feet road is reserved as margin land for future widening of the road, the same cannot be allotted or permitted to be used for construction. It is further submitted that the action of the authorities in converting the said vacant space into sites or sheds for accommodating displaced persons would defeat the very purpose for which the land has been reserved.
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the suit is not maintainable for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. Apart from the said finding, it is held that the 15-feet vacant space adjacent to the 30-feet road is intended for the construction of temporary sheds to accommodate the encroachers, in compliance with the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.137/2018.
7. In the present case, there is no document placed on record to prima facie establish that the 15-feet vacant space is
HC-KAR
reserved for any specific purpose or for the future widening of the road. In the absence of any such material, the impugned order does not call for interference. Further, as held by the trial Court, suit itself is not maintainable in view of non-compliance of Order I Rule 8.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7