1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.1584 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

1.

SANAULLA SHAREEFF

S/O LATE MOHAMMED

IBRAHIM SHAREEF

AGED 62 YEARS

2 .

SMT.BADRUNISSA

D/O LATE MOHAMMED

IBRAHIM SHAREEF

AGED 60 YEARS

3 .

KALEEMULLA SHAREEF

S/O LATE MOHAMMED

IBRAHIM SHAREEF

AGED 58 YEARS

4.

SMT.RAHEEMUNNISA

D/O LATE MOHAMMED

IBRAHIM SHAREF

AGED 56 YEARS

5.

SMT.NISRRATHUNNISA

D/O LATE MOHAMMED

IBRAHIM SHAREEF

AGED 54 YEARS

ALL THE PETITIONERS FROM 1 TO 5 ARE

R/O OLD SBM ROAD,

NELAMANGALA TOWN

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 101

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. S. R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)

2

AND

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY SECRETARY

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA VEEDHI

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU DISTRICT

BENGALURU-560 009.

3.

TAHASILDAR

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

BENGALURU-560009.

4.

REVENUE INSPECTOR

SONDEKOPPA

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 162

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR.M, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H AND ANNEXED MAP AT

ANNEXURE-H1 DATED 18.05.2018 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for

the following reliefs:-

‘a.

Quash

the

impugned

order

at

Annexure-H and annexued map at Annexure-H1

dated

18.05.2018

passed

by

the

Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru at

3

No. LND (N) CR267/2015-16 by issuing writ of

Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order

as the case may be.

b.

And further direct the 4^th respondent

to

implement

the

order

at

Annexure-D,

Annexure-E

and

Annexure-F

by

issuing

necessary consequential direction in that behalf.

c.

Issue such incidental relief which may

deemed fit on the facts and circumstances of the

case and also for cost to secure the ends of

justice and equity.’

2.

Challenge to Annexures H and H1 are concerned,

the petitioners have no locus for the reason that as on the

date of Annexure – H dated 18.05.2018, the subject land

does not stand in the name of the petitioners.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that in respect of the grant of land, the matter is pending

consideration before the revenue authorities.

4.

Insofar as seeking writ of mandamus for

implementation of Annexures D, E and F, the petitioners

have not pointed out statutory right and demand before the

competent authority.

4

5.

For issuance of writ of mandamus under Article

226 of the Constitution, a person must fulfill two

ingredients, namely, one establishing statutory right and

demand before the competent authority.

6.

The aforesaid ingredients have not been apprised

by the petitioners in the present petition. Therefore, the writ

petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners

to

approach

the

competent

authority

insofar

as

implementing Annexures D, E and F within a period of eight

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

dn/-