Sri Venkatesh D R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Venkatesh D R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with observations: petitioner may file reply to the Annexure-A order (dated 02.04.2026) treating it as a show cause notice within 3 weeks of receipt; respondent No.2 shall consider that reply; respondents barred from taking coercive steps against the petitioner until such consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Tahsildar) was obliged, under Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to mandatorily issue prior notice to the petitioner before passing the order at Annexure-A dated 02.04.2026. +1 more

Court's answer

On the language employed in Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to issue prior notice to the petitioner for eviction before taking any decision in the matter.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is permitted to file his reply to the order at Annexure-A, which shall be taken into consideration as a show cause notice.

Key takeaways

The reply is to be made by the petitioner within 3 weeks from receipt of the order, and the same shall be considered by respondent No.2.ratio¶5
Until respondent No.2 considers the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh, J.), Writ Petition disposed of. Petitioner challenged a Tahsildar's order dated 02.04.2026 (No.TAHMGD-LND013/08/2026, Annexure-A) contending that no prior notice was issued. Held that, on the language of Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to issue prior notice to the petitioner for eviction before taking any decision in the matter. The Annexure-A order is to be treated as a show cause notice; the petitioner may file a reply within 3 weeks from receipt of the order, which respondent No.2 shall consider; and until that reply is considered, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25800 WP No. 14463 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 14463 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH D R S/O RAMANNA AGE 53 YEARS R/AT DASEGOWDA PALYA, VTC MARIKUPPE, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MURALI N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARNATAKA MAGADI TALUK OFFICE RAMANAGARA - 562 159

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, MAGADI TALUK OFFICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SOLUR HOBLI,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25800 WP No. 14463 of 2026

HC-KAR

MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 120

THE TALUK SURVEYOR SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA - 562 120

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/04/2026 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TAHSILDAR BEARING NO.TAHMGD-LND013/08/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents

In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.2, inter-alia sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25800 WP No. 14463 of 2026

HC-KAR

respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner's land without following due process of law.

Learned counsel Sri. Murali. N, appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and submitted that, it is the duty of the respondents / authorities to mandatorily issue a notice to the petitioner before passing the order at Annexure-A to the petition and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

Per contra , learned AGA Smt. B.P Radha, sought to justify the impugned order.

In the light of the submission made by both the counsels appearing for the parties and careful consideration of the averments made in the petition and also the language employed in Section 39 of the Act, I am of the view that, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to issue prior notice to the petitioner for eviction before taking any decision in the matter. It is also to be noted that the petitioner be permitted to file his reply to the order at Annexure-A, taking into consideration as a show cause notice and if such a reply is made by the petitioner

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25800 WP No. 14463 of 2026

HC-KAR

herein within 3 weeks from the receipt of the order and same shall be considered by respondent No.2. Till the consideration of the said reply that may be made by the petitioner, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

With this observation the writ petition is disposed

of .

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

PNV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33