Disposed¶36

Sri. Kantharaju. a. N. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026WP/22494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; WP 22494/2025 (KLR-RES); Article 226; Mandya revenue authorities; Srirangapatna Taluk; implementation of order dated 27.08.2019 in WP 19669/2019 (Annexure-D); representations dated 30.10.2019 and 21.09.2022; three-month compliance direction to Deputy Commissioner; disposed; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Mandya) to implement the order passed by this Court produced at Annexure-D within three months from receipt of this order. ¶36

Sri. Kantharaju. a. N. Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31952 WP No. 22494 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 22494 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KANTHARAJU A.N. S/O NAGARAJU AGED 39 YEARS. RESIDENT AT NO.26. ARATHI UKKADA VILLAGE. SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427.

¶10

SRI. JAVARAPPA A.T. S/O THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, ARATHI UKKADA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SRI. SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.505, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:31952 WP No. 22494 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

3. THE TAHSILDAR, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 427

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 - THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. MANDYA, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2019 AND 21.09.2022 AS ANNEXURE-E AND E1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P. NO.19669/2019 DATED 27.08.2019, AND TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY AND TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS, WITHIN A TIMEBOUND SCHEDULE AS MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for direction on respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 30.10.2019 and 21.09.2022 at Annexure E1 and E2, made by the petitioners in compliance with the order dated 27.08.2019 in WP.No.19699/2019 and to conduct an enquiry to take appropriate steps at the earliest.

¶28

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the writ papers as well as the order dated 27.08.2019 in WP.No.19669/2019 and 38904-38924/2019 (Annexure-D).

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31952 WP No. 22494 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The grievance raised by the petitioners is that they

¶32

are not able to put up construction in the sites. Therefore, the observation made by this Court, in the order produced at Annexure-D, makes it clear that the respondent - authorities had to take steps to implement the observation made by this Court.

¶33

In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to implement the order passed by this Court produced at Annexure-D within a period of three months from the receipt of this order.

¶34

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed

¶35

of .

¶36

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.

¶37

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶38

PNV

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri. Kantharaju. a. N. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kantharaju. a. N. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Saroja Vs the Manager

Smt Saraswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B S Vijayaprabha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shekharappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Ramachandraiah C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Munimarappa Vs the State of Karnataka