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.

Y M Ningegowda Vs Marilingaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Y M Ningegowda Vs MarilingaiahY M Ningegowda v. Marilingaiah

Dismissed¶¶46

Y M Ningegowda v. Marilingaiah

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/12921/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — WP No. 12921 of 2017 (KLR-RES), E.S.Indiresh J, order dated 12-06-2026. Writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging Assistant Commissioner's order dated 16.08.2011 in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F) and Deputy Commissioner's confirmatory order dated 28.11.2016 in RP No.101/2014 (Annexure-G) DISMISSED. Petitioners (children of first wife of respondent No.1 Marilingaiah) left free to establish claimed civil rights over the land in a manner known to law; mutation entries MR No.76/2000-01 (partition deed) and MR No.56/1997-98 noted. No precedents cited; no amounts or costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

Since the parties are claiming civil rights in respect of the land in question, it is open for the petitioners to establish their rights over the property in question in a manner known to law; on that view the writ petition fails.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F) and the confirmatory order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RP No.101/2014 (Annexure-G) ought to be set aside.

Court's answer

Since the parties are claiming civil rights in respect of the land in question, it is open for the petitioners to establish their rights over the property in question in a manner known to law; on that view the writ petition fails.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the children of the first wife of respondent No.1, assailing the order dated 16.08.2011 of the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F) and the confirmatory order dated 28.11.2016 of the Deputy Commissioner in RP No.101/2014 (Annexure-G), concerning land originally belonging to Smt. Siddamma, mother of respondent No.1. The Court noted the mutation in MR No.76/2000-01 based on a partition deed and the subsequent katha in MR No.56/1997-98, and held that since the parties are claiming civil rights in respect of the land, it is open to the petitioners to establish their rights over the property in a manner known to law. Petition dismissed.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28597 WP No. 12921 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 12921 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

Y M NINGEGOWDA

S/O MARILINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

R/AT YELCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402

Y M NAGAMANI

W/O KALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NERALAKERE VILLAGE, AREKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. Y M SHOBA

Y M SHOBA W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KILARA VILLAGE, KEREGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 403

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28597 WP No. 12921 of 2017

HC-KAR

AND:

MARILINGAIAH

S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT YELACHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

THE THASILDAR KOTTATTI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA PIN - 571 401

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4

SRI. UDAYSHANKAR R.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28597 WP No. 12921 of 2017

HC-KAR

MANDYA IN R.MIS.NO.203/2007-08 DATED 16.08.2011 AT ANNX-F AND CONFIRMED IN RP NO.101/2014 BY THE LEARNED R-5 AUTHORITY BY DISMISSING THE PETITIONER BY ITS ORDER DATED 28/11/2016 AT ANNX-G AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the orders dated 16.08.2011 and 28.11.2016 (Annexures-F and G) respectively, passed by the respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner and respondent N0.5, Deputy Commissioner respectively.

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, originally, the land was belonging to the mother of the respondent No.1 - Smt. Siddamma. The petitioners herein are the children of the first wife of respondent No.1. It is also

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28597 WP No. 12921 of 2017

HC-KAR

forthcoming from the findings recorded by both the authorities, that the mutation has been changed in MR No.76/2000-01 based on the partition deed.

Thereafter, the land in question was reverted

back to respondent No.1 and pursuant to the same, the katha has been made by thbe respondent - authorities in MR No.56/1997-98 in terms of the katha made in MR No.76/2000-01.

In that view of the matter, since the parties are claiming civil rights in respect of the land in question, it is open for the petitioners to establish their rights over the

property in question in a manner known to law.

Ordered accordingly and petition stands dismissed.

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F) and the confirmatory order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RP No.101/2014 (Annexure-G) ought to be set aside.¶¶29
The court held
Since the parties are claiming civil rights in respect of the land in question, it is open for the petitioners to establish their rights over the property in question in a manner known to law; on that view the writ petition fails.ratio¶¶44

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶29 Article 227¶¶29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.08.2011 passed by respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F), confirmed in RP No.101/2014 by respondent No.5, Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure-G) dismissing the petitioner.¶¶32
Assistant Commissioner, Mandya (R-4); Deputy Commissioner (R-5) in RP No.101/2014 · 16.08.2011 (Assistant Commissioner); 28.11.2016 (Deputy Commissioner)
Prior proceeding
Mutation changed in MR No.76/2000-01 based on the partition deed, as recorded in the findings of both authorities.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Land reverted back to respondent No.1 and katha made by the respondent authorities in MR No.56/1997-98 in terms of the katha made in MR No.76/2000-01.¶¶43

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Y M NINGEGOWDA¶¶9
LAKSHMIKANTH K.
petitioner
Y M NAGAMANI¶¶12
LAKSHMIKANTH K.
petitioner
Y M SHOBA¶¶14
LAKSHMIKANTH K.
respondent
MARILINGAIAH¶¶20
UDAYSHANKAR R.M.
respondent
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KOTTATTI HOBLI¶¶22
B.P. RADHA
respondent
THE THASILDAR KOTTATTI HOBLI¶¶23
B.P. RADHA
respondent
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION¶¶24
B.P. RADHA
respondent
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT¶¶25

Coram

AI extract

E.S.INDIRESHauthor¶¶34

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 12 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 22 Mar 2017
Case no.: WP/12921/2017
CNR: KAHC010036532017
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: E.s.indiresh
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WRIT PETITION (KLR-RES)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from E.s.indiresh

Sri Narasingappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner
11 Jun 2026
Sri. Murthy N Vs the State of Karnataka
11 Jun 2026
Sri Sukumar N Rao Vs the Assistant Director of
11 Jun 2026
Chinnaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka
12 Jun 2026
Sri.a.S.Mani @ a.Susai Mani Vs the State of Karnataka
12 Jun 2026
Sri Sriramappa Vs the State of Karnataka
12 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Y M Ningegowda v. Marilingaiah, WP/12921/2017 (KA), decided on 12 June 2026.

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

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226 · Article 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 16.08.2011 passed by respondent No.4, Assistant Commissioner, Mandya in R.Mis.No.203/2007-08 (Annexure-F), confirmed in RP No.101/2014 by respondent No.5, Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure-G) dismissing the petitioner.Assistant Commissioner, Mandya (R-4); Deputy Commissioner (R-5) in RP No.101/2014 · 16.08.2011 (Assistant Commissioner); 28.11.2016 (Deputy Commissioner)
Mutation changed in MR No.76/2000-01 based on the partition deed, as recorded in the findings of both authorities.
Land reverted back to respondent No.1 and katha made by the respondent authorities in MR No.56/1997-98 in terms of the katha made in MR No.76/2000-01.

View full history

Bench / Coram

E.S.INDIRESH

Parties & counsel