The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. H D Kumaraswamy

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50735-DB WA No. 1462 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1462 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK KANAKAPURA - RAMANAGARA ROAD IJOOR, RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE

¶14

SRI GOUTHAM A.R, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A. 5/2025)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. H D KUMARSWAMY S/O D. DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 286, 3^RD MAIN ROAD 3^RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078

¶17

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI NISHANTH A.V, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:50735-DB WA No. 1462 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.17583/2025 (KLR-RES) & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

For the reasons stated in the application – I.A No.2/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶27

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17583/2025 (KLR-RES), inter alia, staying the summons dated 29.05.2025 issued by appellant No.2 [ the Tahsildar ] under Section 28 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. [ the Act ]

¶28

A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that the learned Single Judge was persuaded to pass the interim order on the submission

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50735-DB WA No. 1462 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

that there was no notification for delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 195 of the Act.

¶32

The respondent had filed the writ petition, inter alia, challenging a the Government Order dated 28.01.2025 purportedly passed in exercise of powers under Section 195 of the Act.

¶33

It is the appellants' case that the contention that the reference to Section 195 of the Act in the order dated 28.01.2025 as well as in the summons dated 29.05.2025, which was impugned in the writ petition, is erroneous. However, notwithstanding the same, the Tahsildar would have power under Section 28 of the Act to proceed to conduct enquiry.

¶34

The learned Single Judge has not examined the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, which prima facie supports the contention that the Tahsildar does have the power to take evidence and issue summons for production of evidence and documents.

¶35

However, we are now informed that the summons, which is impugned in the writ petition, has since been withdrawn and fresh summons has been issued. Additionally, it is stated that the order dated 28.01.2025 which was impugned in the writ petition constituting a Special Investigating Team [ SIT ] has since been modified. Thus, the order staying the proceedings pursuant to the summons dated 29.05.2025,

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50735-DB WA No. 1462 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

does not survive. No proceedings pursuant to the said summons are required to be undertaken. The challenge to the impugned interim order does not survive as well.

¶39

As far as the challenge to the Government Order dated 28.01.2025 is concerned, the said order stands modified. We do not propose to examine the contentious issues which are pending before the learned Single Judge in these proceedings as the present appeal was confined to challenging the interim order which is, prima facie, without sufficient reasons.

¶40

In the given circumstances and considering that the summons as impugned in the writ petition has been withdrawn and the order impugned in the said petition has been modified, no further orders are required to be passed in this appeal, except to note that the impugned order would not survive.

¶41

The parties are at liberty to agitate their rival contentions, if any, before the learned Single Judge. The respondent is also not precluded from filing a fresh application in the event any interim relief is sought for. Needless to state that if any application is made, the same would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶42