Karnataka High Court
Ramu vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 March, 2026
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 201255 OF 2026 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMU S/O SEENAPPA REDDY,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP. NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLEGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
2. KURUMURTHI S/O LINGAPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
Digitally signed 3. RAJU S/O TIMMAPPA,
by SACHIN AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
COURT OF OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
KARNATAKA
RAICHUR-584101.
4. VENKATESH S/O MARUTHI,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHOP NO.15 MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
5. WILLIAM J S/O JAMES DAVID,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 1-2-33 VV GIRI ROAD,
STATION ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
RAICHUR-584101.
6. VRUSHABENDRE S S/O SHIVABASAPPA MALI,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
7. SHASHIKALA B KOLAKAR
W/O BHIMAPPA KOLAKAR @BHIMANNA KOLAKAR,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
8. GOPALRAJ NEELAKANDAN
S/O NEELAKANDAN,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHOP NO.32 MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
9. SMT. SUNITA K D/O SUBBARAO,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 4-4-401/94 GILBARGA BUILDERS LAYOUT,
OPP NAVODAY HOSPITAL, YERAGERA ROAD
RAICHUR-584101.
10. M PRABHU KARLI
S/O M LAXMANNA KARLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHOP NO.6, SRI SIDDAGIRI PROVISIONAL
STORE MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
11. K. SURENDRA S/O K. GOVINDU,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O TIMMAPURPETE RAICHUR-584101.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
12. HARISH REDDY S/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
13. ESHAPPA S/O BHEEMANNA GOUDA,
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O SHOP NO.7, MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
14. SHABAAZ HUSSAIN MD
S/O JAFFAR HUSSAIN MD,
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
15. GEETA D/O VEERESH,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O, MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
16. MOHAMMED KHALEEL
S/O MOHAMMED ISMAIL,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O, MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
17. NAGARATNA S/O ERAPPA,
AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
18. BODAMDHODDI KURMANNA
S/O KURMANNA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/O, MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
19. TONY NAVEEN KUMAR S/O JAMES DAVID,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
20. SANTOSH KUMAR D
S/O VIJAYAKUMAR D,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
21. RAMANANDA S/O KANTHAPPA,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
22. AISHWARYA S/O HANUMANTHARAYA PATIL,
AGE:23 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
23. SHARANABASAVA
S/O NINGAPPANADAGOUDA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
24. PRANESH S/O PAMPAPATHI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC :BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE, RAICHUR-584101
25. GHOUSE S/O MOHAMMED IDRIS,
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
26. MD MUZAMMIL AHMED
S/O MD NAZEER AHMED,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
27. RAJASEKHAR S/O NAGARAJ,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
28. ADARSH GOUDA S/O RAMU,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
29. VENKATESH S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101.
30. MOHAMMED BURANODDIN
S/O BASHEERUDDIN,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MANTRALAYAM ROAD,
OPP NAVODAY MEDICAL COLLAGE,
RAICHUR-584101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447
WP No. 201255 of 2026
HC-KAR
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
RAICHUR-584101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
MAHANAGAR PALIKE RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, a)
ISSUE THE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.03.2026 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E
AND PROVIDE SOME REASONABLE TIME TO THE PETITIONER
TO VACATE THE SHOPS PREMISES. b) ISSUE ANY OTHER
DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following reliefs:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447 WP No. 201255 of 2026 HC-KAR
(a) Issue the writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 12.03.2026 given by the petitioners vide Annexure-E, and provide some reasonable time to the petitioners to vacate the shops premises in the interest of justice.
(b) Issue any other directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Gourish S. Kashampur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
3. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the petitioners who have submitted a representation on 12.03.2026 to provide them some reasonable time to vacate the premises which is the subject matter of this petition, have filed this writ petition on 13.03.2026 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation. Even without granting any time to the respondents to consider the representation, the petitioners are before this Court. On this -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447 WP No. 201255 of 2026 HC-KAR short ground itself, the prayer made in this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. In addition to the same, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, the owner of the premises in question namely Sri. K.Bheemanna has already approached this Court in W.P.No.201198/2026 and this Court has already dismissed the said writ petition on 11.03.2026 placing reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Contempt Petition No.200303/2025. In paragraph No.4 of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.201198/2026, it is observed as follows:
4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that there is a long standing dispute with regard to construction of some shops between the petitioner herein and one Sri Rajendra Patil and it appears that they have filed multiple cases filed against each other. In WP No.203192/2023 and WP No.200345/2025, this Court has issued directions to respondent herein to consider the case of the petitioner herein and aforesaid Rajendra Patil, who is the complainant and take appropriate decision in the matter. Pursuant to that, an enquiry was held by respondent herein and it appears that he has identified shops which are constructed abutting the National Highway and obstructing the ingress and egress to the -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447 WP No. 201255 of 2026 HC-KAR property of the complainant. Complainant Rajendra Patil appears to have filed CCC No.200303/2025 before this Court and in the said proceedings, on 04.02.2026, it is ordered as follows:-
"9. It appears that the complainant and the petitioners in W.P.No.200345/2025 are up in arms against each other as the shops put up by the latter is allegedly obstructing the ingress and egress to the property of the former. It is stated that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioners in W.P.No.200345/2025 has swelled litigation in this Court, inasmuch as between them they have filed several writ petitions and contempt proceedings. Be that as it may, the accused No.2 is bound to prevent ribbon development alongside national highway. If the complainant has informed the accused No.2 about such ribbon development, the accused No.2 cannot sit over the complaints, but is bound to act. This Court in W.P.No.200345/2025 as well as in W.P.No.203192/2023 has issued directions to the accused No.2 to consider the case of the complainant as well as the petitioners therein and take appropriate decision in the matter.
10. Now that the accused No.2 has identified the shops which are constructed abutting the national highway and obstructing the ingress and egress to the property of the complainant, the accused No.2 is bound to take the proceedings to its logical conclusion. If there is no interim stay granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.244/2025, the accused No.2 shall forthwith take
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447 WP No. 201255 of 2026 HC-KAR necessary steps to remove the offensive shops which are abutting the national highway which are identified by the accused No.2. If the shop owners have filed any objections, the same shall be considered, if not already considered, before removing them."
5. After the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners who are tenants claiming under Sri. K.Bheemanna have now approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin and others, reported in 2025 INSC 610, at paragraph No.7 has observed as follows:
"7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularization of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2447 WP No. 201255 of 2026 HC-KAR would lead to undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.
7. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition does not merit consideration, accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:PK