Disposed¶41

Smt Sakamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/27419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; single judge (Suraj Govindaraj); WP No. 27419 of 2024 (GM-RES); decided 12 November 2025. Legal heir certificate (Vamsha Vriksha) application dated 26.07.2024 before Tahasildar, Davangere Taluk; impugned order No. VAMSHA VRIKSHA CR/48/2024-25 dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure-M); earlier order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P.No.26393/2023 permitting filing of documents; petitioners' non-compliance; petition disposed with liberty to submit documents; no quashing granted; respondents: Deputy Commissioner, Davangere District and Tahasildar, Davangere Taluk; counsel: Halli Shantappa Basappa for petitioners, K.P. Yashodha AGA for respondents.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty reserved to the Petitioners to submit all necessary documents and make known all relevant facts. ¶41

Smt Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46599 WP No. 27419 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27419 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE UMAPATI@ UMESHCHAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YAERS, (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

B.U.VEERACHARA, S/O LATE UMAPATI@ UMESHCHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶10

B U DIVAKARA S/O LATE UMAPATI@ UMESHCHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶11

B U BHUVANESHWARI D/O LATE UMAPATI@ UMESHCHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

P1 TO P4 ARE R/O TURCHAGHATTA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST-DAVANAGERE-577004

¶14

(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANGERE-577004

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR, DAVANGERE TALUK, DAVANGERE-577004

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46599 WP No. 27419 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO. VAMSHA VRIKSHA CR/48/2024-25 DTD 18.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M IN ABOVE WP AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs;

¶29

“a. To quash the impugned order in No. VAMSHA VRIKSHA CR/48/2024-25 dated 18.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.2, vide Annexure-M in above writ petition.

¶30

b. To issue direction to the respondent No.2 to issue legal heir certificate (VAMSHA VRIKSHA), to petitioners by considering the application dtd 26.07.2024 and pass any other suitable order/s which deems fit on the facts and circumstances case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶31

The Petitioners had once earlier approached this

¶32

Court and this Court vide order dated 09.07.2024 in

¶33

W.P.No.26393/2023 permitted the Petitioners to

¶34

submit all the requisite documents for the purpose of complying with the request made by the Petitioners.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:46599 WP No. 27419 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Despite the said order, apparently the Petitioners

¶39

have not complied with the furnishing of the documents, resulting in the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 being passed.

¶40

Without the Petitioners complying with the order passed by this Court and submitting the documents, the question of holding the impugned order to be bad in law does not arise.

¶41

Reserving liberty to the Petitioners to submit all the necessary documents and making known all the relevant facts, the petition stands disposed .

¶42

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Smt Sakamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sakamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri. Ivan Miranda Vs Union of India

Vivekananda Shenoy Vs Union of India

Smt. Suganda Vs the Director General of Police

Mr. Vinod Venugopal Vs Mrs. Alice Fernandes

Dr. Rupesh S Iyengar Vs Council of Architecture

Sri. Madhusudan J Vs the State of Karnataka