SRI S. UMAPATHI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1. SRI S. UMAPATHI S/O. M.R.THIPPESWAMY ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDENT OF NAYAKANAHATTY VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536 (BY SRI A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MITHUN KUMAR Y.G., ADVOCATE) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

THE COMMISSIONER, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MAHAKAVI KUVEMPU ROAD NEAR MAKALA KUTTA, CHAMARAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 002 - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25338-DB WP No. 12376 of 2026 HC-KAR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA - 577 501

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURUGA - 577 501

THE TAHSILDAR CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI GURU THIPPERUDRASWAMY 'A' GRADE TEMPLE NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA - 577 536

SRI THIMMA NAYAKA MAJOR, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536

SRI G.S. PRABHUSWAMY S/O. G. SOMASHEKARAIAH MAJOR, RESIDENT OF NAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536 - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25338-DB WP No. 12376 of 2026 HC-KAR

SRI K.M. THIPPESWAMY S/O. SIDDAPPA @ M.Y.T. SWAMY MAJOR, EX. PRESIDENT OF SRI GURU THIPPERUDRASWAMY 'A' TEMPLE NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536

SRI HALAPPA MAJOR, EX. EXECUTIVE OFFICER SREE GURU THIPPERUDRASWAMY 'A' GRADE TEMPLE, NAYAKANAHATTI, CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536

SRI M. ERANNA S/O. SRI MALLESHAPPA MAJOR, CLASS-I CONTRACTOR NEAR FST, RAICHUR ROAD MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI S.THIPPESWAMY, S/O.KIWDU SIDDAIAH MAJOR, CONTRACTOR NAYAKANAHATTI TEMPLE R/O. KELAGALAHATTI VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DT: 5.3.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND FOR PASSING ORDERS THEREON VIDE ANNEXURE-M & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMIANARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25338-DB WP No. 12376 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation [PIL], inter alia, praying as under: " i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the representation dt: 5.3.2024 submitted by the petitioner and for passing orders thereon vide Annexure-M; ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the Respondents 1 and 5 to initiate recovery of public funds which are compelled to be paid by 7th respondent at the instance of respondents 9 to 11 in favour of 12th respondent in Comm.O.S.No.4 of 2022 vide Annexure-K; iii) and to pass any other order or issue a Writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case and to grant such other reliefs as deemed circumstance in the ends of justice and equity. "

2. It is the petitioner's case that the parcel of land falling in Survey No.211/1 of Nayakanahatti village, Challakere Taluk, which earlier belonged to respondent No.9 had been sought to be diverted for construction of the Dasoha Bhavan. The petitioner - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25338-DB WP No. 12376 of 2026 HC-KAR states that the said land had already been included as a part of an approved layout comprising of 33 residential sites, which was subsequently increased to 63 residential sites. Thus, respondent No.9, who is the owner, could not have diverted the said lands. Notwithstanding the same, the State Government had accorded administrative approval for construction of the Dasoha Bhavan at a cost of `4,93,25,000/- on the said land. The contract construction of the Dasoha Bhavan was also awarded respondent No.12.

3. It is the petitioner's case that in subsequent proceedings, it was found that the land could not have been diverted. In the meanwhile, respondent No.12 raised certain constructions and also received part payment for the same.

4. Since this Court had held that the order passed by the State Government is illegal, the said construction could not be proceeded with. However, respondent No.12 had claimed amounts of outstanding payment for the construction already raised. He also filed a commercial suit, COM.OS.No.4/2022, claiming a payment of `3,27,00,291/- for work done and a further amount of `9,74,000/- - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25338-DB WP No. 12376 of 2026 HC-KAR as damages. The dispute in the said commercial suit was settled, whereby respondent No.7 agreed to pay certain amounts as agreed. The petitioner has made a representation, inter alia, praying that the amounts paid be recovered from respondent No.9 and other officials.

5. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition and issue any directions in this regard. However, we clarify that if the authorities find that they are entitled to recover any amount from respondent No.9 or any other person, they are not precluded from initiating any proceedings for recovery of the amounts as found due. Needless to state that if any such proceedings are initiated, the same would be considered in accordance with law.