Smt. Lakshminarayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with the observation that no interference is made with respondent No.2's order, and that any action taken pursuant to Annexure-J is subject to the rights of the parties to be decided in O.S.No.330/2026 by the competent Civil Court; pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.2 (Tahasildhar, Doddaballapura Taluk) with regard to conducting phodi in respect of the subject land should be quashed.

Court's answer

Even if phodi is conducted in the subject land pursuant to Annexure-J, the rights of the parties would be crystallised in the comprehensive suit in O.S.No.330/2026; therefore the Court was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

Whatever action may be taken by respondent No.2 pursuant to Annexure-J shall be subject to the right of the parties to be decided in O.S.No.330/2026 by the competent Civil Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (E.S. Indiresh J., order dated 10.07.2026) disposed of a writ petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by Smt. Lakshminarayanamma seeking quashing of dispute THD-LNDSOLND1/196/2026 (E-973703) and the Tahasildhar's (respondent No.2) notice dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure-J) concerning conduct of phodi in respect of subject land at Narasimhanahalli Village, Tubugere Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed O.S.No.330/2026 seeking declaration and consequential relief (respondent No.2 arrayed as a party) and that respondent No.3 Ashwathappa had filed O.S.No.194/2024 before the Civil Court seeking permanent injunction in respect of the same land. Holding that even if phodi is conducted pursuant to Annexure-J, the parties' rights would be crystallised in the comprehensive suit O.S.No.330/2026, the Court declined to interfere with respondent No.2's order, stipulating that whatever action respondent No.2 takes pursuant to Annexure-J shall be subject to the rights of the parties to be decided in O.S.No.330/2026 by the competent Civil Court. Writ petition disposed of; pending application, if any, does not survive.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35202 WP No. 16011 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.16011 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NARASIMHANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561205.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANIL SHEKAR K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

THE TAHASILDHAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.

ASHWATHAPPA, S/O. LATE THELLAPPA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35202 WP No. 16011 of 2026

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NARASIMHANAHALLI VILLAGE, TUBUGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561205.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A.S.HARISH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. C.M. RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DISPUTE VIDE THD-LNDSOLND1/196/2026 (E-973703) AND PERTAINING TO THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE (ANNEURE-J) PENDING BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging the notice dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.2.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35202 WP No. 16011 of 2026

HC-KAR

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the material on record, would indicate that the impugned notice has been issued to the parties with regard to conducting phodi in respect of the subject land.

In this regard, Sri. Anil Shekar K.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, suit in O.S.No.330/2026 is filed by the petitioner seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief and in the said suit, respondent No.2 herein has been arrayed as a party.

At this juncture, Sri. C.M. Raghunath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, submitted that respondent No.3 herein has filed O.S.No.194/2024 before the Civil Court seeking relief of permanent injunction in respect of the subject land.

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, even if the phodi is conducted in subject land pursuant to Annexure-J, however, rights of the parties would be crystallised in the comprehensive suit in O.S.No.330/2026. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35202 WP No. 16011 of 2026

HC-KAR

However, whatever action that may be passed by respondent

No.2 pursuant to Annexure-J shall be subject to the right of the

parties to be decided in O.S.No.330/2026 by the competent Civil Court.

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Pending application if any, does not survive for

consideration.

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23