Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Smt. Puttamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. Puttamma Vs the Deputy CommissionerSmt. Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Allowed¶44

Smt. Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Land Revenue – Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026WP/25938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-application of mind; absence of reasoned order by Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar; writ petition under Articles 226/227 allowed; impugned order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L, RA.No.95/2020-21) set aside; matter remanded/re-mitted for fresh hearing and reasoned order under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; RRT proceedings Nos. RRT 329/2017-18 and RRT.01/2020-21; Assistant Commissioner Kollegal; Tahasildar Chamarajanagar; single judge E.S.Indiresh; High Court of Karnataka; WP No. 25938 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR); decided 11.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.1 to re-hear and pass a reasoned order looking into the entire records with reference to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and relevant Rules.

Why is it important?

Respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) passed the impugned order without looking into the entire records; no reasoned order was passed, amounting to non-application of mind, and the submission of petitioners' counsel is accepted. ¶40

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.1 to re-hear and pass a reasoned order looking into the entire records with reference to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and relevant Rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) suffers from non-application of mind and absence of reasons, warranting interference by this Court.

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) passed the impugned order without looking into the entire records; no reasoned order was passed, amounting to non-application of mind, and the submission of petitioners' counsel is accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Revenue - Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - petitioners challenged the order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District in RA.No.95/2020-21, arising out of Tahasildar proceedings approved by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal (Annexure-G, No.RRT 329/2017-18) and endorsement dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure-K, RRT.01/2020-21). Held: perusal of the impugned order showed no reasoned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner; he passed the order without looking into the entire records, i.e., with non-application of mind. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to re-hear the matter and pass a reasoned order with reference to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and relevant Rules. (Para 40, 43, 44)

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28117 WP No. 25938 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.25938 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE MADEGOWDA @ MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.7-67, OLD KURUBARA STREET KOLLEGALA TOWN, KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTIRCT CHAMARAJANGARA - 571603.

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

SRI. M. MAHADEVA S/O LATE L. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.7-67, OLD KURBARA STREET KOLLEGALA TOWN, KOLLEGALA TALUK KOLLEGALA.

SMT.PREMA W/O LATE M. PARASHIVA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT H -1, 5^TH CROSS ARVINDA NAGARA JT EXTENSION MYSURU - 570023.

SRI. M. SHANKARA S/O LATE MADAIAH ALIAS MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28117 WP No. 25938 of 2022

HC-KAR

R/AT NO.165, 4^TH CROSS KAVITHA LAYOUT BENGALURU SOUTH GOVERNMENT ELECTRONIC FACTROY BENGALURU - 560026.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571440.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB DIVION KOLLEGALA - 571440.

TAHASILDAR CHARMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGARA - 571603.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF TAHASILDAR AND WHICH WAS APPROVED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF KOLLEGAL VIDE ANNEXURE -G BEARING NO.RRT 329 /2017-18 AND ENDORSEMENT IN THIS CONTEXT VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 05.11.2020, IN RRT. 01/2020-21. AND FURTHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RA.NO. 95/2020-21 DATED 12.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28117 WP No. 25938 of 2022

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

IN this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1.

Sri. Manjunath Prasad V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, there is non application of mind by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order at Annexure-L and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful perusal of the impugned order would indicate that respondent No.1 has observed that the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub Division, Kollegal has passed the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28117 WP No. 25938 of 2022

HC-KAR

order without verifying the records. However, perusal of the impugned order would indicate that there is no reasoned order passed by respondent No.1 and therefore, I am of the view that, that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order without looking into the entire records and as such, there is non application of mind while passing the impugned order at Annexure- L. Accordingly, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

6. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Chamaajanagar District, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to re-hear the matter and pass reasoned order by looking into entire records with reference to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and relevant Rules

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

sac

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) suffers from non-application of mind and absence of reasons, warranting interference by this Court.¶35
The court held
Respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) passed the impugned order without looking into the entire records; no reasoned order was passed, amounting to non-application of mind, and the submission of petitioners' counsel is accepted.ratio¶40

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶25
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964¶44

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, in RA.No.95/2020-21, assailed in this writ petition.¶34
Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District · 12.09.2022
Prior proceeding
Proceedings of the Tahasildar approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Kollegal vide Annexure-G bearing No.RRT 329/2017-18, with endorsement vide Annexure-K dated 05.11.2020 in RRT.01/2020-21.¶25
Prior proceeding
Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA.No.95/2020-21 dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L), challenged in this petition.¶25

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE MADEGOWDA @ MADAIAH¶9
Manjunath Prasad V.
petitioner
SRI. M. MAHADEVA S/O LATE L. MADAIAH¶11
Manjunath Prasad V.
petitioner
SMT.PREMA W/O LATE M. PARASHIVA¶12
Manjunath Prasad V.
petitioner
SRI. M. SHANKARA S/O LATE MADAIAH ALIAS MADEGOWDA¶13
Manjunath Prasad V.
respondent
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT¶20
Spoorthy Hegde N.
respondent
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB DIVION KOLLEGALA¶21
Spoorthy Hegde N.
respondent
TAHASILDAR CHARMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT¶22
Spoorthy Hegde N.

Coram

AI extract

E.S.INDIRESHauthor¶31

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 11 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 26 Dec 2022
Case no.: WP/25938/2022
CNR: KAHC010593142022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: E.s.indiresh
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Writ Petition (KLR-RR/SUR)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from E.s.indiresh

Smt Usha Shetty Vs the Additional Land Tribunal Udupi
10 Jun 2026
Smt K G Nagamani Vs State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
Belur Club Somwarpet Vs State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
Sri H. L. Shantha Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka
11 Jun 2026
Sriman Niranjana Pranava Swaroopi Vs the State of Karnataka
11 Jun 2026
H.P. Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka
11 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. Puttamma v. the Deputy Commissioner, WP/25938/2022 (KA), decided on 11 June 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District, in RA.No.95/2020-21, assailed in this writ petition.Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagar District · 12.09.2022
Proceedings of the Tahasildar approved by the Assistant Commissioner of Kollegal vide Annexure-G bearing No.RRT 329/2017-18, with endorsement vide Annexure-K dated 05.11.2020 in RRT.01/2020-21.
Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA.No.95/2020-21 dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure-L), challenged in this petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

E.S.INDIRESH

Parties & counsel