Allowed

Smt. Thayamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WP/28665/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that allowed a third party's objection to a mutation entry in her favour. The High Court found that both authorities erred in entertaining the objection since the petitioner was not connected to the mutation challenged by the third party. The court set aside both orders and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 03.03.2023 and 11.03.2025 set aside; matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration; parties to appear on 26.10.2026

Smt. Thayamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50339 WP No. 28665 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010623952026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 28665 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT HIREKALALE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571423.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. K N NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

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

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT- 571401.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION MANDYA DISTRICT- 571434.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571426.

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:50339 WP No. 28665 of 2026

¶21

CNR: KAHC010623952026

¶22

SMT. JAVARAMMA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, MAJOR, HIREGALALE HOBLI, KASABA HOBLI, KR.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571426.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA, FOR R1 TO R3, SRI SHANKAR H S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE J DATED 03.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2017-18 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ETC.,.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

Respondent No.4/caveator is represented by learned counsel, Sri Shankar H S.

¶30

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing

¶31

the order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-J) passed by

¶32

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:50339 WP No. 28665 of 2026

¶35

CNR: KAHC010623952026

¶36

respondent No.2 and order dated 11.03.2025 (AnnexureM) passed by respondent No.1.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is claiming right over the property based on the registered sale deed dated 08.11.1966, made in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner, Rayi Gowda. Thereafter, MR No.33/91-92 was made in respect of the subject land in favour of the fatherin-law of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 herein has challenged MR No.19/91-92 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the respondent No.2.

¶38

It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is no way concerned with MR No.19/91-92. In that view of the matter, on careful consideration of the mutation in MR No.33/91-92 (Annexure - C), wherein the entry has been made in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner herein, I am of the view that, both the Authorities have

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:50339 WP No. 28665 of 2026

¶42

CNR: KAHC010623952026

¶43

committed an error in allowing the claim made by the respondent No.4 herein. In that view of the matter, it is a fit case to remit the matter to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Hence I pass the following

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure J) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure - M) passed by respondent No.1 are hereby set aside.

¶47

iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.

¶48

iv) Since the parties are represented through the learned counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 26.10.2026 at 3.00 p.m.

¶49

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶50

BKM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Smt. Thayamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thayamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases