Allowed¶52

Smt. Shankaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2026WP/2186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land grant dispute, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District: writ petition under Article 227 challenging the Deputy Commissioner's revision order (Revision Petition No.465/2010-11, Annexure-A) that reversed the Assistant Commissioner's cancellation of the Saguvali Chit/land grant dated 27-09-1994 in favour of Gundamma W/o Aleppa (Case No.RA(A)332/2006-07, order dated 09-12-2010, Annexure-C); RTC mutation M.R. No.8/1995-96; writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh reconsideration with hearing to all parties. NC: 2026:KHC:27569.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11 (Annexure-A) set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh reconsideration and decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11 (allowing the revision and directing continuance of Gundamma's name in the RTC despite the Assistant Commissioner having set aside her Saguvali Chit) should be set aside and the matter remitted to him for fresh reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties.

¶45

Court's answer

Writ petition allowed; the order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11 (Annexure-A) is set aside.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Matter remitted back to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J., Oral Order dated 09-06-2026), W.P. No.2186/2024 (KLR-RES) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner challenged the order dated 16-03-2023 (Annexure-A) of the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11, whereby the revision filed by the legal representative of deceased grantee Gundamma W/o Aleppa was allowed and the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk was directed to continue Gundamma's name (per M.R. No.8/1995-96) in the RTC in respect of the subject land, notwithstanding the order dated 09-12-2010 (Annexure-C) of the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RA(A)332/2006-07 setting aside the Saguvali Chit dated 27-09-1994 issued in Gundamma's name. Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remitted the matter back to him to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27569 WP NO.2186 OF 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.2186 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O LATE SAMPANGI @ SAMPANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.1058, FORT ROAD, SARJAPURA, BENGALURU - 562 125.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶17

THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:27569 WP NO.2186 OF 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

5. SMT. GUNDAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.

¶22

5(a). SRI. V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O SARJAPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5(a))

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16^TH MARCH, 2023 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.465/2010-11 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 09^TH DECEMBER, 2010 PASSED IN CASE NO.RA(A)332/2006-07 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order

¶30

dated 16^th March, 2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent

¶31

No.2 in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27569 WP NO.2186 OF 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Heard Sri. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel on

¶35

behalf of Sri. Veeresh M. Uppin, appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5(a).

¶36

Sri. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to order dated 09^th December, 2010 (Annexure-C) passed in Case No.RA(A)332/2006-07 and submitted that the grant made in favour of Gundamma W/o Aleppa was rightly cancelled by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, however, the respondent No.2, without appreciating the said aspect of the matter in Revision Petition has directed the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to continue the name of Gundamma W/o late Aleppa as per M.R. No.8/1995-96 in the RTC in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶37

Per contra, Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, learned

¶38

counsel appearing for the respondent No.5(a) submits that the subject land has been granted in favour of Gundamma as per

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:27569 WP NO.2186 OF 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the Grant Certificate/Saguvali Chit dated 27^th September, 1994

¶43

and on which basis the respondent No.5(a) is claiming right over the subject land. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶44

Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, it is forthcoming that the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, set-aside the Saguvali Chit issued in the name of Gundamma W/o Aleppa. However, the respondent No.2 in Revision Petition filed by the legal representative of said Gundamma, allowed the revision petition and directed the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to continue the name of Gundamma w/o Aleppa. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be remitted back to the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter, after affording an

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:27569 WP NO.2186 OF 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶50

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

(i) Writ Petition allowed;

¶53

(ii) Order dated 16^th March, 2022 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.465/2010-11 is hereby set-aside and matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶54

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶55

ARK

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Smt. Shankaramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shankaramma v. the 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

Sri H M Himachalapathi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Gilbert D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mahadevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Kamalamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Munilakshmamma Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Surya Puthri Vs the State of Karnataka