Sri. M. P. Jaishankar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO HOLD ENQUIRY REGARDING THE CLAIM NO.HOA 52/79-80 MADE BY THE PETITIONER’S FATHER PUJE MAYIGAIAH

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20658 WP No. 2161 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

FILED UNDER KARNATAKA VILLAGE OFFICES ABOLITION ACT, 1961 PERTAINING TO LAND BEARING SY.NO.76 MEASURING 2 ACRES 36 GUNTAS SITUATED IN H MALLIGERE VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-F) AND GRANT THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the inaction of the Tahsildar, Mandya, in not conducting an enquiry as directed by the District Judge in MA (VOA) 48/1980 vide the order dated 12.08.1981, confirmed by this Court in CRP No.440/1985.

¶28

BRIEF FACTS

¶29

The petitioner's father-Puje Mayigaiah, was holding 2 acres 36 guntas of inam land in Sy. No. 76 of H. Malligere Village, Mandya Taluk and after the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), Puje Mayigaiah filed an application for re-grant. During the pendency, the petitioner's father

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20658 WP No. 2161 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

passed away and the petitioner prosecuted the claim. The Tahsildar, Mandya, held enquiry in respect of all the claims of inam lands, including the claim of the petitioner. The Tahsildar by order dated 28.03.1980, erroneously granted a substantial portion of land to a third party and a small

¶33

portion to the petitioner.

¶34

Aggrieved, the petitioner and others preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Mandya, under Section 3 (2) of the Act in MA (VOA) No. 48/1980, who by order dated 12.08.1981 set aside the Tahsildar’s order and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. The said order was affirmed by this Court in CRP No. 440/1985 on 17.01.1985. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such remand, no enquiry has been conducted till date.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the order of remand for over three decades, the Tahsildar has failed to comply. Repeated representations, including one dated 20.12.2025, have not

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:20658 WP No. 2161 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

been considered and such inaction is arbitrary, illegal and violative of statutory duty.

¶40

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that the delay is attributable to procedural difficulties, such as non-service of notice on the parties. It is submitted that the enquiry would be conducted within reasonable time.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the order of remand by the District Judge in the year 1981, confirmed by this Court in 1985 has attained finality. The Tahsildar was under the statutory and judicial obligation to conduct enquiry in terms of the said directions.

¶42

The explanation offered by the State that enquiry could not be conducted due to procedural issues is wholly untenable. The lapse of more than 44 years clearly demonstrates gross negligence and inaction on part of the authorities. Such conduct defeats the very purpose of the Act and causes great prejudice to the petitioner. The authority has literally slept over the matter. This Court is

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:20658 WP No. 2161 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

of the considered view that the continued inaction is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Hence, a direction is required to be issued to ensure compliance within the time bound frame work, further the conduct of the authorities warrants imposition of cost. Accordingly, this Court pass

¶47

the following :

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii)Mandamus is issued, directing the Tahsildar-respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry in

¶51

terms of the order passed in MA (VOA) 48/1980 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶52

(iii) The State shall pay the cost of `. 50,000/-

¶53

to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks, and file an acknowledgment before this Court.

¶54