Smt.Arathi Krishna Vs Sri.R.Raghu

SMT.ARATHI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O SRI G.M. KRISHNA, RESIDING AT NO. 12023, OAK 'B' BLOCK GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024

¶11

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

G.M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SON OF MARIGANGAIAH RESIDING AT NO.641, VALEMONT CT, LAS VEGAS NV.89123, UNITED STATES

¶13

ALSO RESIDING AT B-31, 'B' BLOCK, THE SUMMIT, NO. 27, SANKEY ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE -560 051, KARNATAKA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SMT. ARATHI KRISHNA …APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. BRIJESH SINGH M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20800-DB WA No. 261 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI.R.RAGHU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SON OF RAJANNA RESIDING AT UDAYAPURA, VEDA VIGNANA MAHAPEET 21^ST K.M, KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560002 BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI.K.PRASAD

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGAOE 560 001

¶21

THASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK TALUK OFFICE BUILDING BENGALURU-560002

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2 & R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2022 IN WRIT PETITION No.8512/2022 AND ORDERS DATED 08.01.2025 IN REVIEW PETITION No.94/2024 BOTH PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:20800-DB WA No. 261 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.8512/2022 as well as the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in review petition No.94/2024. The appellant was not a party before the writ Court. Therefore, the appellant had filed application seeking leave of this Court to file the appeal. This Court, vide order dated 13.03.2026, allowed the application and granted leave to file the appeal.

¶33

Since the appellants were not the parties to the writ proceedings, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the application I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed.

¶34

The petitioner before the writ Court had filed a writ petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to consider the representations dated 02.03.2022 and 22.03.2022 and pass necessary orders regarding the mutation. The petitioner's claim was against the land in question i.e., Sy.No.67 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas situated at Agara Village, Kengeri Hobli,

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20800-DB WA No. 261 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Bengaluru South Taluk which he had purchased in pursuance of the sale proclamation dated 25.12.2002 and for that the Court auction was conducted on 19.04.2003.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that

¶39

the appellants are the owners of the land and the same is on record and the order impugned does not prejudice the petitioner or his rights. It is further submitted that in view of the order passed by the writ Court directing the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to consider the representation dated 02.03.2022 filed by the petitioner, the proceedings which had concluded would get reopened and the petitioner's right will get affected without hearing him.

¶40

We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment passed in the review petition.

¶41

The learned Single Judge has not given any direction to allow the representation of the petitioner. The only direction is to the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20800-DB WA No. 261 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

We, therefore, do not wish to interfere with the

¶45

impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as the review petition. However, we direct the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk to issue notice to the petitioner of hearing and consider the petitioner's objections, if any, before taking action or a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2022, as directed by the writ Court.

¶46

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of .

¶47

The costs imposed in the review petition dated 08.01.2025 is waived.

¶48

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶50

RKA

¶51

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Smt.Arathi Krishna v. Sri.R.Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Arathi Krishna v. Sri.R.Raghu

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

State of Karnataka Vs Shri. Narayanaswamy

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. C. Ramakrishna

M/S Shekar Builders Vs Sri S K Venkatesh

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Avenue Supermarts Ltd.

Smt B S Leelavathi Vs Ramakrishna Reddy

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Syed Mastan