Dismissed¶44

Sri Jayaram M S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2026WP/15452/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single Judge (E.S. Indiresh, J.), order dated 08.07.2026 in Writ Petition No.15452 of 2026 (KLR-RES); petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against Deputy Commissioner's order dated 17.04.2026 in No.R.P.508/2025 (Annexure-P); competing claims of land grant between petitioners and private respondent Nos.5-11; parties directed to competent authority under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966; writ petition rejected/dismissed; Mandya district; alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the submissions of counsel and the writ records, respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner), after considering the entire material on record, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 in R.P. No.508/2025. ¶42

Sri Jayaram M S Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34349 WP No. 15452 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15452 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. JAYARAM M.S. S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶10

R/AT. NO.230, MAIN ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA -571415.

¶11

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

¶12

SRI. A.L. RAMESH, S/O N.LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 69/A, 2^ND CROSS, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. H.M. MANJESH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S BUILDING BENGALURU-576001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34349 WP No. 15452 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARK ROAD 2, PES COLLEGE CAMPUS, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, MANDYA- 571401.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT -571434.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR SRIRANGAPATTANA, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571438.

¶22

SRI. JAYARAMU, S/O JAYARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

¶23

SMT.TIMMAMMA, W/O LATE. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.

¶24

SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. SAKAMMA, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34349 WP No. 15452 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

SMT. SANNATHAYAMMA, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶30

SRI. RAJU, S/O LATE. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶31

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 11 ARE R/AT, CHIKKANKANA HALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571438.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.04.2026 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA, RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IN NO.R.P.508/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-P.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶39

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 17.04.2026(Annexure-P) passed by respondent No.2 in R.P. No.508/2025.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34349 WP No. 15452 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, on consideration of the writ records would indicate that Respondent No.2, after considering the entire material on record, has rightly passed the impugned order.

¶43

The controversy is as to the grant made in favour of the petitioner as well as private respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein are concerned. As both the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 to 11 herein are claiming the land in question as grant being made in their favour, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner/parties to approach the competent authority under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is accordingly, rejected.

¶45

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶46

sac

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Sri Jayaram M S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jayaram M S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Zeenath Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Sandeepani Educational Society Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kempahanumakka Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Surapaneni Hanumantha Krishna Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Munivenkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna K N Vs the Assistant Commissioner