Karnataka High Court
WA/949/2026 of SMT R SUJATHA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 10 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:20122-DB WA No. 949 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BEEEN: 1. SMT R SUJATHA W/O LATE RAMASWAMYREDDY
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BEEEN:
1.
SMT R SUJATHA
W/O LATE RAMASWAMYREDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2.
SRI THILOTHAMA R
S/O LATE RAMASWAMYREDDY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3.
SMT ARUNI A R
D/O LATE RAMASWAMYREDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE ALL
R/AT ALIBOMASANDRA VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU CITY
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BENGALURU K G ROAD,
BENGALURU 560009
3.
THASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 562106
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S.ARUNA HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 10/03/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.6577/2026, ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
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)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6577/2026 filed by the appellant.
2. The appellants/petitioners had sought to challenge the internal communication dated 20.01.2026 made by the
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, to the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to take action in accordance with law to remove all encroachments on the Rajakaluve in between Muthanalluru Amanikere and Alibommasandra Village.
3. The appellants/petitioners owned some land adjoining to said Rajakaluve where the Rajakaluve has been leveled and road has been laid over it.
4. The learned Single Judge, having noted the provisions of Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, to take action to remove any encroachment only in accordance with law. If the provisions contained in Section 68 of the Act are required to be followed, then the Tahsildar must take action ensuring due process of law.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that the road, which is alleged to have been constructed on a Rajakaluve has been existed for more than 50 years and has been used by public. He contends that the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tahsildar to remove the
HC-KAR
said road without holding any inquiry as contemplated under Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
6. On the other hand Mr. G S Aruna, learned High Court Government Pleader pointed out the village map, which clearly depicts that the road which is being sought for removal is shown as Rajakaluve.
7. We are not sure that who laid this road over Rajakaluve, whether it was the Government Authorities or some private individuals. Even if Government Authorities laid the road, the road cannot be constructed over the Rajakaluve, the water channels are to be restored.
8. Be that as it may, Section 68 of the Act contemplates inquiry. We direct the Deputy Commissioner to hold an inquiry involving the appellants/petitioners and others. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to issue a notice to the appellants/petitioners and others for hearing regarding their objections to the removal of the road laid over the Rajakaluve. Even if Section 68 is not applicable, a hearing must be given to
HC-KAR
the appellants/petitioners and other affected parties, after which a decision has to be taken.
9. The Deputy Commissioner must complete the inquiry within a period of 6 weeks and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
10. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of existing road.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5