SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23780

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
R DEVDAS, J
MRS. REETA A. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.18358 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI G. B. MANJUNATHA
For the Respondents: SRI SESHU V., H.C.G.P.

Petitioner must approach a civil court for possession issues rather than seek relief through a writ petition.

Headnote:The writ petition was filed to restrain the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner's residential site. The court found that issues related to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act require matters to be addressed in a civil court, thus denying the request in this writ. The court confirmed that interference cannot be prevented in such circumstances.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks protection of property possession. (Para 2)
2. court emphasizes civil court jurisdiction for land disputes. (Para 3)

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petition schedule property and to ensure that they do not dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has purchased a residential site bearing No.13, BBMP Khatha No.299/7 measuring 3500 square feet under a registered sale date dated 23.07.2021 at Annexure-A.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader raises an objection that firstly the petitioner has purchased a residential site and she claims that there is a katha registered in the office of the BBMP. This Court is concerned with the matters arising out of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and not provisions of the BBMP Act or the new Greater Bengaluru Authority Act (for short ‘GBA Act’). Moreover, the prayer sought by the petitioner from dispossession cannot be sought before this Court. The petitioner will have to approach a competent civil court to protect her interest.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top