Allowed¶55

Rangaswamy v. Anjanna Murthy

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/23018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 23018 of 2022 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 15.04.2026; Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; writ of certiorari allowed; notice dated 11.10.2022 of Karnataka State SC and ST Commission (Land Case No.71/2018) set aside as beyond jurisdiction; civil land dispute/possession protection; SC & ST Commission Act, 2002; Article 226 Constitution of India; Tumkur; Machanahalli; Survey No.20/2; parties free to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; notice dated 11.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.2/Commission set aside; parties at liberty to agitate their claims before the appropriate forum; pending I.As. in the writ petition stand closed. ¶55

Rangaswamy Vs Anjanna Murthy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20630 WP No. 23018 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23018 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RANGASWAMY

¶11

S/O GANGAGUDDAIAH,

¶12

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶13

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶14

LAXMIEESHA

¶15

S/O GUNGADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶16

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

BOTH ARE R/O MACHANAHALLI, URDIGERI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 140.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

ANJANNA MURTHY,

¶22

S/O GANGAIAH,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:20630 WP No. 23018 of 2022

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

R/O MACHANAHALLI,

¶27

KESARA POST, URDIGERI HOBLI,

¶28

TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 572 140.

¶29

KARNATAKA STATE SC AND ST COMMISSION

¶30

NO. 14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶31

(NOTE: THE OTHER PARTIES IN NOTICE I.E., A.C. & THASILDAR NOT NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT RELIEF SOUGHT AGAINST THEM)

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. V R BALARAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R2)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE NO.KARA/AJA/AABU/COMMISSION/LAND CASE NO.71/2018 VIDE ANNX-C AND C1 DTD 11.10.2022, ISSUED BY THE R-2.

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20630 WP No. 23018 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶41

Wherefore, it is respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari or any other writ by quashing the notices no.KARA/AJA/AABU/Commission/Land Case No.71/2018 vide Annexure-C and C1 dated 11.10.2022, issued by the respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and equity.

¶42

The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 has approached the Respondent No.2 stating that the Respondent No.1 is in possession of the property and there is an interference by the petitioner. The Respondent No.1 has sought the protection against the petitioners in respect of the land. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent /commission issued a notice on 11.10.2022 by directing the petitioners to be present on 02.12.2022 at 11.00 a.m. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners are before this court.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner's submits that Petitioners are the lawful owners of the land bearing Survey No.20/2 to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land at Machanahalli Village, Urdigeri Hobli, Tumkur taluk and they are

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20630 WP No. 23018 of 2022

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property according

¶47

to their share as specified in the RTC. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue notice where the Respondent No.1 has sought for protection. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 has acted beyond the jurisdiction, conferred on them as per the SC & ST Commission Act, 2002 as such the same needs to be set aside.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing to the Respondent No.1 submits that commission in the process of protecting the rights of Respondent No.1, had issued a notice. It is submitted that the petitioner ought to have appeared before the Respondent No.2 and ought to have submitted before the Respondent No.2, but he cannot come before this court by filing the instant writ petition and the petition has to be dismissed on the ground.

¶49

Though vakalath is filed, there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent No.2/Commission.

¶50

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel of the Respondent No.1, perused the entire material on record. Impugned in the present petition is a notice issued by the Respondent No.2-/Commission. The relief that is

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20630 WP No. 23018 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

sought by the Respondent No.1 is pertaining to a civil dispute between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent No.1, he sought for a protection and the Commission has issued a notice. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Commission has no such powers to interfere in these kind of disputes and grant protection to the Respondent No.1 on the face of it this notice that is issued by Respondent no.2 is beyond the powers/jurisdiction conferred on the SC-ST Commission. In that view of the matter , this Court is passing the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55