Disposed¶36

Smt H N Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025WP/1070/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (KLR-RES) disposed; mandamus to Tahsildar, Saligrama Taluk refused; Annexure-A order dated 16.01.2004 in R.P.No.06/2001 held superseded by Deputy Commissioner's order dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-H); revision R.P.No.22/2021 against Assistant Commissioner order R.Mis(K)10/17-18 dated 6.7.2018 dismissed; petitioners relegated to civil Court; liberty to challenge Annexure-H; Articles 226-227 Constitution; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; NC: 2025:KHC:2165.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued; liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-H) through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. ¶36

Smt H N Venkatalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No mandamus issued; liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-H) through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) should be directed by mandamus to consider the petitioners' application at Annexure-J dated 18.10.2024 and give effect to the Deputy Commissioner's order at Annexure-A dated 16.01.2004 in R.P.No.06/2001 within a time frame. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without issuing the sought mandamus, granting the petitioners liberty to challenge the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-H) through appropriate proceedings in accordance with law; this disposal does not preclude the petitioners from pursuing any remedies available to them to assail the Annexure-H order.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Having suffered an adverse order at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-H), the petitioners cannot now derive any benefit from or rely on the earlier order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure-A); the directions in Annexure-A have been rendered redundant and superseded by the subsequent and prevailing order dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-H), which effectively nullifies any reliance on Annexure-A for the relief sought.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by six family members seeking a mandamus to respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Saligrama Taluk, to consider their application dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure-J) and give effect to the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 16.01.2004 in R.P.No.06/2001 (Annexure-A) within a time frame. Held: the petitioners' revision R.P.No.22/2021 against the Assistant Commissioner's order in R.Mis(K)10/17-18 dated 6.7.2018 was dismissed, relegating them to the civil Court (Annexure-H, Deputy Commissioner's order dated 11.06.2024); having suffered that adverse order, they cannot rely on the earlier Annexure-A order, whose directions stand rendered redundant and superseded. Petition disposed of, granting liberty to challenge the 11.06.2024 order through appropriate proceedings. Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. (Single Judge).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2165 WP No. 1070 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1070 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. H. N. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O LATE H.V. VENATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHOLLALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶7

SMT. H.V. KANYA KUMARI, W/O B.K.RANGASWAMISHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.116, 5^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, JANAJYOTHI NAGAR, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 056.

¶8

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

¶9

SMT.H.V.YAMUNA W/O H.P.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.1334, 25^TH MAIN ROAD, PARANGIPALYA, HSR LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 012.

¶10

H.V. VASUNDARA W/O M.H. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.7608, 2^ND PHASE, RAJU CORNOR, BASAVANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR 4^TH STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017.

¶11

¶12

NC: 2025:KHC:2165 WP No. 1070 of 2025

¶13

SRI. H.V. BADRINATH S/O LATE H.V. VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT FRONT OF JAIN TEMPLE, BARODA BANK ROAD, HOSAHOLLALU VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶14

SRI. H.R.VISHWANATH, S/O LATE H.V. RANGASWAMY SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT FRONT OF JAIN TEMPLE, BARODA BANK ROAD, HOSAHOLLALU VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS P RINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, SALIGRAM TALUK, SALIGRAMA, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2165 WP No. 1070 of 2025

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP )

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AT ANNEXURE -J DATED 18.10.2024 AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE -A DATED 16.01.2004 IN RP NO. 06/2001 WITHIN A TIME FRAME.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned HCGP is directed to take notice to

¶29

respondents.

¶30

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus against respondent No.4/Tahsildar to consider petitioners' application at Annexure-J and give effect to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-A dated 16.1.2004 in R.P.No.06/2001.

¶31

Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this Court that there are subsequent proceedings and petitioners' revision in R.P.No.22/2021 assailing the order of Assistant Commissioner passed in R.Mis(K)10/17-18

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:2165 WP No. 1070 of 2025

¶34

dated 6.7.2018 is dismissed and the petitioners are relegated to approach the civil Court, which is evidenced at Annexure-H.

¶35

The petitioners, having suffered an adverse order at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-H, cannot now seek to derive any benefit or rely on the earlier order dated 16.01.2004, evidenced at Annexure-A. It is pertinent to note that the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner in the order at Annexure-A have been rendered redundant and without significance in light of the subsequent and prevailing order dated 11.06.2024, as evidenced at Annexure-H. The order at Annexure-H supersedes the earlier directions, effectively nullifying any reliance on Annexure-A for the relief sought by the petitioners in this matter.

¶36

In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 11.06.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-H, through

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:2165 WP No. 1070 of 2025

¶38

¶39

appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law. This disposal does not preclude the petitioners from pursuing any remedies available to them under the applicable legal framework to assail the order at Annexure-H, should they

¶40

so desire.

¶41

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶42

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Smt H N Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt H N Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Mahendra Mishra Vs Mrs. Annabelle Fernandes

M/S. Kmv Projects Vs the State Project Director

Young Mens Christian Association Vs M/S M R P Home Inn (P) Ltd.

Sri. Md. Kaleem Pasha Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr.Alan Stephenson Vs Mr.J.Xavier

Sri v R Santhosh Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner