Dismissed¶69

Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2025WA/377/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WA No. 377 of 2025 (KVOA), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 01.12.2025 by Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and C.M. Poonacha, J (per Poonacha J): writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against dismissal of W.P. No. 26934/2023 as not maintainable; challenge to order dated 26.09.2022 in M.A. No.101/2020 (VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) setting aside the Tahsildar's order dated 03.11.2010 in HOA CR No.32/2001-02; Tahsildar's fresh order on merits dated 10.10.2022; liberty to appeal against Tahsildar's order; appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; pending I.As. disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No infirmity was found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition; accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. ¶69

Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2025 (KVOA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶11

ANJINAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶12

SRIRAM S. S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

HANUMANTHA RAJU S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶16

CHOWDAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶17

NINGAMMA W/O. LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶18

MUNIYAMMA, D/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NEELAMMA D/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶23

ANJINAMMA D/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶24

MARUTHI, S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶25

HANUMAKKA W/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶26

MUNIYAPPA, S/O. LATE BYLA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶27

MARUTHI, S/O. LATE HANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶28

KUSUMA, D/O. LATE HANUMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶29

ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE

¶30

RESIDING AT A. K. COLONY, THARABANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560090.

¶31

…APPELLANTS

¶32

(BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

¶39

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BENGALURU, KANDYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

¶40

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF BENGALURU NORTH, KANDYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009

¶41

THE TAHSILDAR OF BENGALURU, NORTH TALUK, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU-56004

¶42

M. P. SRINATH NAIDU, S/O. LATE M. G. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 46, 6TH CROSS, TELEPHONE NAGAR, PERUGUNDI, CHENNAI-600096

¶43

DWARAKANATH NAIDU, S/O. LATE M. G. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 168, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, RAMCO LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560092

¶44

BHUVAN RAVI, W/O. LATE RAVINDRANATH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶45

SWATHI RAVI, D/O. LATE RAVINDRANATH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶46

BOTH RESPONDENT NO. 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 32, 13^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SUBBAIAH HOSPITAL, MATHIKERE EXTENSION,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

MSRIT, BENGALURU-560054

¶51

SURENDRANATH NAIDU, S/O. LATE M. G. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 101, F1, BALAJI RESIDENCY, BEML, 4^TH STAGE, OPPOSITE BBMP PARK, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560098

¶52

RAJENDRANATH NAIDU, S/O. LATE M. G. PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 7, FAIR MEADOWS, 5^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, PAMPA EXTENSION, KEMAPURA, OPPOSITE TO MARGE GLORIOUS CHURCH, BANGALORE-560024,

¶53

KESHAVALAL B., S/O. LATE GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 6/7, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHIKKABANAVARA, BANGALORE-560090

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SMT NAMITHA MAEHSH B G, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶56

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 26934/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶63

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶64

The present appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in W.P. No.26934/2023. The learned Single Judge recorded the submission made by the respondents that the Tahsildar has passed an order dated 10.10.2022 on merits. The writ petition which was filed challenging the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in M.A. No.101/2020 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said order dated 26.09.2022 having been given effect to, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. It was observed that the writ petitioners were at liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar.

¶65

It is forthcoming that vide the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in MA No.101/2020, the order dated 03.11.2010 passed by the Tahsidlar in HOA CR No.32/2001-02 was set aside and the Tahsildar was directed to reconsider the case putforth in terms of the revenue record. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the Tahsildar has subsequently passed an order on merits on 10.10.2022.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:50097-DB WA No. 377 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

In view of the aforementioned, we find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶70

Pending I.As. if any, stand disposed of.

¶71

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶72

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶73

BS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16

Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmaiah N M Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Ramachandra K Vs Smt Shalini Rajneesh

Sri C. Raghuram Dead by Lrs Smt R Manjula Devi Vs State of Kanataka

M/S Penna Cement Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Nilesh N.Shah Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Sri Siddharaju S Vs Smt. K.S. Jyothishree