IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 973 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI M SHIVALINGAIAH S/O SRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.2856 SAMVRUDDI SRI CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA RAJAKEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT, APPAGERE MAIN ROAD CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA Digitally signed RAMANAGARA -562159 by SHWETHA RAGHAVEN DRA 2. THE COMMISSIONER Location: HIGH CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL COURT OF CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 KARNATAKA

3. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHANNAPATNA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R1 AND 2 TO FORM THE ROAD AS PER THE REFERENCE MADE IN THE SKETCH CDEF IN RSA NO.2238/2005 JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this court seeking for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to form the Road as per the reference made in the Sketch CDEF in RSA No.2238/2005 Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2011 vide Annexure-B and C.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the representation dated

22.07.2019 & 30.11.2020 vide Annexures N & P.

c) To issue any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the judgment dated 15.09.2011 in RSA 2238 of 2005, the respondent is required to form a road for public access in the sketch at Annexure-C, more particularly delineated by the alphabets C, D, E and F. His submission is that there is no access to the sites of the petitioner and as such a road has to be formed.

3. A perusal of the said sketch indicates that the property belongs to Jayamma and several others. The said property being private property, even the direction which had been issued in RSA No.2238 of 2005, was to form the road for public use. That does not mean that a direction could be issued to the respondents to form a road without acquiring the said land. Admittedly, the land over which the road has to be formed belonging to private persons, a mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents to form such a road on the land of private persons. Said Jayamma is neither a party to these proceedings nor was a party in RSA No.2238 of 2005. Furthermore, the respondents were also not parties in RSA No.2238 of 2005 to have enabled them to place their say on record. In that view of the matter, the said order cannot be said to be binding on Jayamma or the respondents in the present matter.

4. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available under law, petition stands disposed SD/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8