Karnataka High Court
WA/1857/2025 of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs MRS. SHANAAZ HAMEED, on 3 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33194-DB WA No. 1857 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3.
THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY,
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS,
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001.
4.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.
5.
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560 001.
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
6.
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
NOW YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 064.
7.
THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 064
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA)
AND:
1.
MRS. SHANAAZ HAMEED,
W/O MR. TAQLIB HASAN DARVESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/A NO.51/1, PROMENADE ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU 560 005.
2.
MR. K.N. GOPAL,
S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE,
THARAHUSANE POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
3.
MRS. M.R. MAMATHA,
W/O K.N.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE,
THARAHUSANE POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU 562 157.
4.
MIS. SAMPRADA,
D/O MR. K.N. GOPAL,
RESIDING AT KUDUREGERE VILLAGE,
THARAHUSANE POST,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
HC-KAR
BENGALURU 562 157
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP
No. 11112/2022 (KLR-RES), ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
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 JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
Heard Mr. M N Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants-State and Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 22.0.2024 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.9046/2002 and connected writ petition.
HC-KAR
3. Learned AGA submits that the wall in question had been constructed on Government land and that the encroachment was removed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru, in accordance with law. He submits that the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 in CCC No.866/2022 were dropped vide order dated 27.09.2024. He further submits that the imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000/- for demolition exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Additonal) Taluk, Now Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru is not justified and that the appellants are not challenging the merits of the decision, but only the imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, fairly submits before this Court that in view of the subsequent developments and the dropping of the contempt proceedings, respondent No.1 has no serious objection to the deletion of the costs of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order.
HC-KAR
5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and the explicit no-objection recorded by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, we are of the considered view that the imposition of the costs no longer survives under the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The direction imposing costs of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) upon the appellants in the judgment and order dated 22.01.2024 stands deleted. iii. The remaining observations stand unaltered.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7