Allowed

B v. Shivashankar v the Tahasildar

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WA/1918/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against dismissal of a writ petition and subsequent review petition, both dismissed because appellants insisted on dispensing with notice to respondent No.3. The Division Bench allowed the appeal on the appellants' undertaking to serve notice, set aside both orders, and remanded for fresh decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 07.03.2023 in WP 20544/2022 and 28.02.2024 in RP 399/2023 set aside; matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on merits subject to appellants taking notice to respondent No

B v Shivashankar Vs the Tahasildar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.1918 OF 2024(LB-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B.V. SHIVSHANKAR S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT: NO.1926/3, 3^RD CROSS, PRASHANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶11

B.V. UMESH, S/O. LATE B. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT:NO.97, 12^TH MAIN,

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

9^TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091.

¶14

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA. R, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DIVISION,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶22

CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNCIPALITY, KUNIGAL TOWN, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶23

N.V. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. G. VASUDEVA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT: KRS AGRAHARA, KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.20544/2022 AND ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN REVIEW PETITION No.399/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶34

This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court, 1961 calling in question, the order dated 07.03.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20544/2022, the impugned order passed in Review petition No.399/2023 dated 28.02.2024.

¶35

By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the premise that in the event of any order passed, it is likely to affect the interest of respondent No.3, however the appellants have insisted for dispensation of notice to respondent No.3. Appellants were before the Learned Single Judge calling in question for the following reliefs:

¶36

"Issue a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 dated 26.09.2022 vide Annexure-"N" bearing No.PC/RO/CR/75/2022-23.

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Issue a writ of MANDAMUS to comply the Judgment and order passed by Respondent No.4, Asst. Commissioner, Tumkur Division, Tumkur District. In MUN(A) No.03/17 dated 18.12.2019 Vide ANNEXURE-"J".

¶40

Grant any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit Judged by the circumstance including cost of above writ petition in the interest of justice."

¶41

When the matter was listed for "preliminary hearing" before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that the notice to respondent No.3 may be dispensed with. The learned Single Judge has found that if any order is passed in the writ petition in the absence of respondent No.3, that may affect the interest of respondent as such no dispensation will be permitted. However, since the appellants were insisting for dispensation of notice, petition was not considered and accordingly, it was dismissed.

¶42

A review petition came to be filed thereafter calling the order under review, therein also the learned

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

counsel appearing for the review petitioner insisted for dispensation of notice to respondent No.3. Accordingly, the review petition was also dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.5,000/-.

¶46

Heard Sri. Subramanya R., learned counsel

¶47

appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants would take notice for respondent No.3 and since the writ petition was not heard on merits, sought indulgence of this Court to set aside the order passed by Learned Single Judge and remand the matter for fresh consideration on merits. As Sri. Subramanya R., has undertaken that he would take notice against respondent No.3 before the Learned Single Judge and in view of the submission, since the matter was not heard and disposed on merits, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 07.03.2023 in W.P.No.20544/2022 as well as order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Review petition No.399/2023. The matter stands remanded to the Learned

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:14699-DB WA No. 1918 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Single Judge for fresh consideration on the merits, provided the appellants take notice to respondent No.3.

¶52

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

B v. Shivashankar v the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B v. Shivashankar v the Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagendrappa (Chowdappa) Vs the State of Karnataka

K F Noor Basha Vs Mr S Moinudeen

Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd., Vs the Urban Development Department