Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

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

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt.Naagamma Vs the Deputy CommissionerSmt.Naagamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Disposed¶36

Smt.Naagamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025WP/35517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 mandamus; writ petition closed with liberty to approach Civil Court; Ashraya Scheme house allotment/residence dispute; Sy.No.75 Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South; representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-A to F); respondents: Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban District, Assistant Commissioner Bengaluru South Division, Tahasildar Bengaluru South Division, Panchayath Development Officer Taralu, Executive Officer Bangalore South Panchayath; criminal complaint instituted; contentions left open; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:32748; GM-RES; decided 14.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed (neither allowed nor dismissed); liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law, and all her contentions were left open to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings. No mandamus was issued.

Why is it important?

Instead of issuing the mandamus sought, the Court closed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law. ¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The writ petition was closed (neither allowed nor dismissed); liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law, and all her contentions were left open to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings. No mandamus was issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus or direction should be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-A to F) concerning permanent residence in the house in Sy.No.75 of Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, reserved under the Ashraya Scheme. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Instead of issuing the mandamus sought, the Court closed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law.

Key takeaways

All the contentions of the petitioner were left open to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC at Bengaluru (Anu Sivaraman J.), WP No. 35517 of 2024 (GM-RES), decided 14.08.2025 [NC: 2025:KHC:32748]: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus/direction to the Deputy Commissioner (Bangalore Urban), Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar (Bengaluru South), Taralu Panchayath Development Officer and Executive Officer (Bangalore South Panchayath) to consider the petitioner's representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-A to F) for allowing her to permanently reside in a house in Sy.No.75 of Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, reserved under the Ashraya Scheme. Counsel informed the Court that a Criminal Complaint had been instituted against the responsible persons and that the petitioner would approach the Civil Court. The Court accordingly closed the writ petition, reserving liberty to file appropriate suits or other proceedings and leaving all contentions open.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32748 WP No. 35517 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WRIT PETITION NO. 35517 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT.NAAGAMMA W/O LATE KUMARA AGED ABOUT48 YEARS R/AT. GUTTEPALYA, TARALU POST UTTHARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 061

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 002

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 002

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU- 560 002

PANCHAYATH DEVOLOPMENT OFFICER TARALU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH TARALU

BENGALURU-560 082

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32748 WP No. 35517 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH PANCHAYATH BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 050

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (i) ISSUE WRIT PETITION OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 05.12.2024 AND 09.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO F AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed praying to issue writ of mandamus or direction directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 as per Annexure-A to F.

The petitioner made representations as per Annexure A to F seeking to allow her to permanently reside in the house in Sy.No.75 of the Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath reserved under the Ashraya Scheme contending that she has been residing there from the past three years.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:32748 WP No. 35517 of 2024

HC-KAR

Since no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Criminal Complaint has been instituted against the responsible persons and that the petitioner will now have to approach the Civil Court.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law, this writ petition is closed . All the contentions of the petitioner are left open to be agitated in the appropriate proceedings.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a writ of mandamus or direction should be issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexure-A to F) concerning permanent residence in the house in Sy.No.75 of Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, reserved under the Ashraya Scheme.¶29
2.
In view of the petitioner's submission that a Criminal Complaint has been instituted against the responsible persons and that she will have to approach the Civil Court, what disposition should be made of this writ petition?medium confidence¶35
The court held
Instead of issuing the mandamus sought, the Court closed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate suits or other proceedings as maintainable in law.ratio¶36

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶25

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner made representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexures A to F) to the respondents seeking to be allowed to permanently reside in the house in Sy.No.75 of Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, reserved under the Ashraya Scheme, claiming residence there for the past three years; according to the petitioner, no action was taken on them.¶30
Prior proceeding
At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Criminal Complaint had been instituted against the responsible persons and that the petitioner would now have to approach the Civil Court.¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. NAAGAMMA W/O LATE KUMARA¶9
SRIKANTH N.V.
respondent
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT¶13
SHWETA KRISHNAPPA
respondent
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION¶15
SHWETA KRISHNAPPA
respondent
THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION¶16
SHWETA KRISHNAPPA
respondent
PANCHAYATH DEVOLOPMENT OFFICER, TARALU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH¶17
SHWETA KRISHNAPPA
respondent
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BANGALORE SOUTH PANCHAYATH¶22
SHWETA KRISHNAPPA

Coram

AI extract

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMANauthor¶27

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 14 Aug 2025 · August
Registered: 27 Dec 2024
Case no.: WP/35517/2024
CNR: KAHC010746332024
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: GM-RES

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman

Sri Nataraj K Vs Pooja K
6 Dec 2024
M/S. Fourses Foods Vs M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited
6 Dec 2024
Mr. C. Jayagopal Vs Sree Charan Souhardha Sahakara Bank Niyamitha
6 Dec 2024
Lily Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs Umesh K Patel
14 Aug 2025
Mr K K Sharfuddin Vs the State of Karnataka
14 Aug 2025
The Authorized Claim Settle Manager Vs Smt Geethamma
14 Aug 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt.Naagamma v. the Deputy Commissioner, WP/35517/2024 (KA), decided on 14 August 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner made representations dated 05.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 (Annexures A to F) to the respondents seeking to be allowed to permanently reside in the house in Sy.No.75 of Guttepalya village, Taralu Gram Panchayath, reserved under the Ashraya Scheme, claiming residence there for the past three years; according to the petitioner, no action was taken on them.
At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Criminal Complaint had been instituted against the responsible persons and that the petitioner would now have to approach the Civil Court.

View full history

Bench / Coram

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

Parties & counsel