Sri S Keshavamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17682 OF 2021 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S.KESHAVAMURTHY SON OF LATE SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.237, 17^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS BEL LAYOUT, MAGADI ROD, BANGALORE - 560 091

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ AND LOCAL BODY M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT KUNIGAL TLAUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTICT PIN CODE - 572130

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KAGGERE GRAM PANCHAYATH KAGGERE YEDIYUR HOBLI

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTICT PIN CODE - 572142

¶18

SMT. SAKAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶19

4(a). SRI. B.G. SRINIVAS S/O LATE GOPALAIAH AND SAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVAMATHIKERE VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 560070

¶20

4(b). SMT. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE GOPALAIAH AND SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.144, 1^ST STAGE SINGA MARGA, NANDINI LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570028

¶21

4(c). SRI. B.G. KUMAR S/O LATE GOPALAIAH AND SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANAMATHIKERE VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 560070

¶22

4(d). SMT. B.G. VIMALA D/O LATE GOPALAIAH AND SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANAMATHIKERE VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 560070

¶23

4(e). SMT. B.G. SUJATHA D/O LATE GOPALAIAH AND SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADESHWARANAGAR, 3^RD CROSS, BANGALORE - 570091

¶24

4(f). SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MADESHWARANAGARA

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

3^RD CROSS, BANGALORE - 570091.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.CHANDINI SINGH S. HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND 3; SRI. K.G.SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4(a) AND (c); V/O. DATED 10.06.2025 AND 23.10.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENT NO.4(b), (d), (e) AND (f) IS HELD SUFFICIENT.

¶31

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY BEARING JANJUR NO.39, SL.NO.58, PROPERTY MEASURING EAST TO WEST - 20 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH - 30 FEET, SITUATED AT BASAVAMATHIKERE VILLAGE, KAGGERE GRAM PANCHAYAT, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN VPC NO.1/2014-15 DATED 05.07.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

"(i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the order at Annexure - A passed in the name of the 4^th Respondent with respect to the property bearing Janjur No.39, Sl.No.58, property measuring East to West:20 feet and North to South:30 feet, situated at Basavanamathikere village, Kaggere Gram Panchayat, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk and the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

VPC. No.1/2014-15 dated:05.07.2021 as per ANNEXURE-C.

¶41

(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, by allowing the above Writ Petition, to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶42

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the son and legal heir of late Subbegowda, who was the appellant in the proceedings before respondent No.2. It is submitted that upon the demise of the said Subbegowda, a memo reporting his death was filed along with an application seeking to bring his legal representatives on record on 14.11.2019. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 19.11.2019.

¶43

However, it is contended that thereafter the matter was adjourned on the ground that the appellant was absent and subsequently the appeal came to be dismissed without considering the application filed for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record.

¶44

A perusal of the records indicates that the memo reporting the death of the appellant and the application seeking substitution of legal representatives were indeed filed prior to the dismissal of the appeal. In such circumstances, the appeal ought not to have been dismissed without first considering the application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased appellant on

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

record. The order passed in the said manner has the effect of adversely affecting the rights of the petitioner, who claims to be the legal heir of the deceased appellant in the proceedings before respondent No.2.

¶48

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the memo reporting the death of the appellant and the application seeking to bring the legal representatives on record had been filed prior to the dismissal of the appeal. Once such an application was filed, it was incumbent upon respondent No.2 to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further in the matter.

¶49

The dismissal of the appeal without first deciding the application for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record amounts to failure to follow the basic procedural requirements governing adjudication. Such a course of action has the effect of depriving the legal heirs of the deceased appellant of an opportunity to prosecute the appeal, thereby resulting in serious prejudice.

¶50

In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. The matter requires to be remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration, after first deciding the application filed

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:12010 WP No. 17682 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant on record.

¶55

Accordingly, I pass the following

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶58

(ii) A certiorari is issued, the order passed by respondent No.2 in VPC No.1 of 2014/15 dated 05.07.2021 at Annnexure - C is quashed.

¶59

(iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner to bring himself on record as a legal heir and take up the matter for consideration thereafter.

¶60

(iv) Since this order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, they shall appear before respondent No.2 without requirement of any further notice at 02.30 p.m. on 16.03.2026.

¶61

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶62

HJ

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Sri S Keshavamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Keshavamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C G Mylarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt a Dhanalakshmi Vs the Commissioner

Smt Manu M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.B.Shobha Bai Vs the Chief Commissioner

State Bank of India Vs the Commissioner

Swamy B Vs Gram Panchayat Kalya