The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. K G Pramila

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 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. 1477 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK K.G. ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009

¶11

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

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION K.G. ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

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

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. K.G. PRAMILA W/O D.C. THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO.2421, 10^TH MAIN VIJAYANAGARA 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 040

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. SUNANDA W/O LATE D.C. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT DODDARASINAKERE CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422

¶21

SRI D.T. SANTOSH S/O. D.C. THAMMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO. 2421, 18^TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 040

¶22

SRI AMALAN ADHITYA BIKSWAS REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 027

¶23

SRI NISAR AHAMAD JOINT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶24

ISLA UDDIN GADYALA ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 027

¶25

SRI GANAPATHI SHASTRY THASILDHAR - REVENUE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU - 560 027

¶26

SMT. SHEETHAL THE TAHSILDAR, GRADE- 2 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL & SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P. NO.11448/2025 (KLR-RES) & ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

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

¶37

For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A No.2/2025, the

¶38

same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶39

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an interim order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11448/2025 (KLR-RES), whereby the appellant authorities were directed not to proceed against the respondents, till the next date of hearing. The said order has since been extended from time to time.

¶40

A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it does not mention any reason for passing the interim order. It is material to note that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 [ writ petitioners ] had filed

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the said writ petition impugning an order dated 28.01.2025 constituting a Special Investigation Team [ SIT ] of five members to conduct an enquiry in respect of certain allegations in the context of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.

¶44

According to the writ petitioners, the said order offends the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioners had also made certain others prayers, which were withdrawn. However, subsequently, the writ petition was amended and the writ petitioners challenged the issuance of the summons dated 05.04.2025 issued by appellant No.2 [ the Tahsildar ]. The said summons was issued under Section 28 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 calling upon the writ petitioners for verification of the documents and evidence in respect of the transactions of the land falling within survey numbers as mentioned in the said summons.

¶45

A plain reading of the petition indicates that the principal challenge laid by the writ petitioners is that such an enquiry is required to be conducted by the officers of a higher rank ‒

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. According to the writ petitioners, the said functions could not be delegated.

¶49

It does appear that the import of the interim order is to restrain further proceedings pursuant to the summons that was impugned in the said petition. However, this Court is informed that prior to the interim order, orders dated 22.05.2025 had been passed by the Tahsildar in the said proceedings. Copies of the said orders have been handed over by the learned Advocate General to this Court.

¶50

In view of the said orders, the question of interdicting the proceedings pursuant to the summons does not arise.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners contends that the said orders were not placed before the learned Single Judge and the same was not communicated to the writ petitioners.

¶52

We do not propose to examine the controversy on the merits of the said orders in this proceedings. However, it is clear that the impugned order staying the further proceedings cannot be sustained. First of all, the said order relates to the summons in

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50737-DB WA No. 1477 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

respect of the proceedings which had culminated in the orders dated 22.05.2025 prior to the impugned order. Second, that the impugned order does not indicate any reason for interdicting further proceedings.

¶56

In view of the above, we dispose of the present appeal by observing that the interim order which is impugned in the appeal is currently inoperative and is set aside. However, we clarify that this does not preclude the writ petitioners from agitating any grievance that they may have or institute proceedings to challenge the orders

¶57

dated 22.05.2025, a copy of which has been handed over to this Court. We clarify that all the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶58

The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed

¶59

of.

¶60

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶61

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶62

AHB

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. K G Pramila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Smt. K G Pramila

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

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S Madhu Construction

M/S Ideb Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Sri Saragar Thayanna Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. H D Kumaraswamy

M/S T K Jana Gold Jewellery Works Vs the Chairman

Sri. Krishnappa by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka