Dismissed¶64

Smt. Mahadevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/12236/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WP No. 12236 of 2026 (KLR-RES); Justice E.S. Indiresh; decided 08.06.2026; writ petition DISMISSED; mandamus sought to cancel revenue entries made in favour of Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District and to stop compensation to respondents 10-13; khatha mutation refused; impugned order 14.01.2026 in R.P.No.24/2025 traced to W.P.No.10071/2012 (order dated 20.05.2014) upholding acquisition by Preliminary Notification 01.04.1981 and Final Notification 29.03.1984; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; NC: 2026:KHC:27117.

What did the court decide?

The land in question was acquired by the respondents-authorities by Preliminary Notification dated 01.04.1981 and Final Notification dated 29.03.1984. ¶62

Smt. Mahadevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 12236 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT, NO.352, NAYAKAR BEEDI HINKAL, MYSURU-570017,

¶11

SMT CHIKKAMMA

¶12

W/O LATE. PUTTA BASAVARNAYAKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HOSA RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE-571103.

¶13

SRI. J. MAHADEVAPPA S/O LATE. C. JAVARANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT, NO. 357, NAYAKAR BEEDI HINKAL, MYSURU-570017.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI J CHIKKANNA

¶16

S/O LATE. C. JAVARANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT, NO.357, NAYAKAR BEEDI HINKAL, MYSURU 570017.

¶17

SRI.J. SHIVANNA S/O LATE. C. JAVARANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/T, NO.357, NAYAKAR BEEDI HINKAL, MYSURU-570017.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE. M. DODDACHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT, UDBURU VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU-570008.

¶21

SMT. SUNDRAMMA D/O LATE. M. DODDACHIKKAMMA. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT, ELACHODI VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU-577005.

¶22

SRI. MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O LATE. M. DODDACHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/ AT, BILIKERE VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU-571103.

¶23

SRI. RACHANAYAKA S/O LATE. MOOGANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/ AT HOSARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU-571103.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHWAR J., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT MYSORE-570001.

¶28

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570005.

¶29

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JLB ROAD, MYSORE-570005.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SMT. ARATHAMMA W/O LATE SRI MANDA @ THAMMAYYA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

¶33

SRI. KANTHA S/O. LATE SRI MANDA @ THAMMAYYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶34

SMT JAYAMMA W/O. SRI KANTHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶35

SRI. VENKATESHA S/O. SRI. KANTHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶36

SRI. MURTHY S/O. KANTHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶37

SRI. RAVI. S/O. KANTHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R4 TO R9 ARE RESIDING AT MODALAHALLY VILLAGE NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571448.

¶38

SRI.C MANJU S/O. LATE CHIKKAPUTTALAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A. NO 2554/2, 3^RD CROSS KALIDASA ROAD, ONTIKOPPAL MYSURU-570002.

¶39

SRI M MAHADEVU S/O SRI.MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A KURGAHALLI VILLAGE BELAWADI POST, YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-571606.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

SRI SHIVANANJEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A. KUKKERA HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLL, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571415

¶43

SRI MAHADEVU S/O NINGEGOWDA @ VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HENTAGE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBIL MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT -570020.

¶44

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION OLD DC BUILDING MYSORE-570001.

¶45

THE THASILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MINI VIDANA SOUDHA NAZARBAD, MYSORE-570010.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP. FOR R1 TO R3: R14 AND R15:

¶48

NOTICE TO R4 TO R13 ARE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 08.06.2026)

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE 1 AND 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CANCEL THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOR OF THE 1 RESPONDENT AND FURTHER THE 2^ND RESPONDENT NOT PAY COMPENSATION IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 13 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1,14 AND 15 TO MUTATE KHATHA IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶50

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 14 and 15.

¶56

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and therefore, sought for a writ of mandamus against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to cancel the revenue entries made in favour of the respondent No.1.

¶57

Per contra, learned HCGP also submitted that the impugned order dated 14.01.2026 in R.P.No.24/2025 (Annexure-A) has been passed by the respondent No.1 based on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10071/2012 dated 20.05.2014. Accordingly, learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶58

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the reasons assigned by the respondents-

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:27117 WP No. 12236 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

authorities, would indicate that, the land in question has been acquired by the respondents-authorities by Preliminary Notification dated 01.04.1981 and Final Notification dated 29.03.1984 and these acquisition proceedings have been upheld by this Court in W.P.No.10071/2012.

¶63

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the impugned order is passed by the respondent No.1 herein based on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10071/2012, I am of the view that, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondentsauthorities.

¶64

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶65

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶66

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31

Smt. Mahadevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mahadevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Suma Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. Shreenivasa @ Shreenivasa Gowda D R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Sudha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Roopa N Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M.S. Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Sowbhagya Vs the State of Karnataka