Dismissed¶50

Panchayath Development Officer v. Sri.Vijiyappa

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025WA/1028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

khata; khata issuance direction; Ramohalli Grama Panchayath; Panchayath Development Officer; Tahsildar; Bangalore South Taluk; writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; W.P.No.13899/2024; KLR-RES; NC: 2025:KHC:24877-DB; V Kameswar Rao Acting Chief Justice; C M Joshi; Dayanand Hiremath; K.S. Harish Government Advocate.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Counsel for the appellant stated the withdrawal was to enable the appellant to file a detailed representation to the Tahsildar. ¶50

Panchayath Development Officer Vs Sri.Vijiyappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24877-DB WA No. 1028 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1028 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAMOHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENGERI HOBLI

¶12

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 074

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI DAYANAND HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

SRI.VIJIYAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.255, RAMOHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060

¶18

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT RAMOHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060

¶19

SRI V BASAVARAJ S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:24877-DB WA No. 1028 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R/AT NO.E-107, RAMOHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060

¶24

SRI SURESH S/O SMT. SUJATHA GRANDSON OF SMT. JAYAMMA AND THAMMAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT RAMOHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060

¶25

SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.99, RAMOHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶28

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB.DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 001

¶29

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 001

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:24877-DB WA No. 1028 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 001

¶34

TALUK CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BANGALORE DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 001

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO 11)

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.13899/2024 (KLR-RES) & ETC.

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶40

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶43

The challenge in this writ appeal is to an order passed by

¶44

the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2025 in Writ Petition No.13899/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 5 by stating in paragraph 3 as under:

¶45

"In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24877-DB WA No. 1028 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

and learned Additional Government Advocate, as the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioners herein and therefore, there is no impediment for respondent No.4 to issue khata in favour of the petitioners after verifying the entire records and to take decision in the matter in accordance with law, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

¶49

After some submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he shall withdraw the writ appeal to enable the appellant herein file a detailed representation to the Tahsildar .

¶50

Noting the said submission, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶51

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand accordingly disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶54

AHB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Panchayath Development Officer v. Sri.Vijiyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchayath Development Officer v. Sri.Vijiyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Chandan. C Vs Sri. Mohammad Mohsin

Raju Guttedara ( R B Guttedar) Vs the State of Karnataka

Kht Agencies Private Limited Vs Deputy Conservator of Forests

Sri S Chikkaboraiah Vs Smt Mamatha

Sri Ragu Ramarao Vs Sri Vishnuvardhan Reddy

Smt Sheela Shenoy B Vs Ms v Rashmi Mahesh