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.

Krishnappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Krishnappa Vs the Assistant CommissionerKrishnappa v. the Assistant Commissioner

Dismissed¶43

Krishnappa v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/29460/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed for non-compliance of office objections; no representation for petitioner; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; judge R Devdas; KLR-RES land/land-records matter; petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 25.09.2020 in R.A(S).595/2018-19 of Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision and order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District; petitioner Krishnappa s/o late Muniyappa; respondents include Assistant Commissioner Bangalore South Sub-Division, Tahsildhar Bengaluru South Taluk, legal representatives of T. Narasimhaiah, N. Sharadamma, N. Narasimha Murthy, Maruthi Prasad, M. Puttamma, N. Vijayalakshmi, N. Shobha; counsel Sri. Raghu Prakash Babu D. for petitioner and Sri. V. Seshu, HCGP for official respondents; decision dated 10.02.2026; neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:7781.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, there being no representation for the petitioner when the matter was called out and office objections remaining uncomplied. ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25.09.2020 in R.A(S).595/2018-19 (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision) and the order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 (Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District) were liable to be set aside - framed by the petitioner's prayer but not adjudicated, as the petition was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections, there being no representation for the petitioner when the matter was called out and office objections remaining uncomplied.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Devdas), Writ Petition No. 29460 of 2023 (KLR-RES), Krishnappa v. The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division and others - order dated 10.02.2026 (neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:7781). The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, sought setting aside of the order dated 25.09.2020 passed in R.A(S).595/2018-19 by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision, dismissal of that appeal, and setting aside of the order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District. By order dated 3.2.2026 a week's time had been granted to the petitioner's counsel to comply with office objections, failing which the matter was to be listed on 10.02.2026 for dismissal. On 10.02.2026 the matter was called out; there was no representation for the petitioner and office objections had not been complied with; consequently the petition stood dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. No issue on the merits was adjudicated and no precedent was cited.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7781 WP No. 29460 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29460 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.112/1, 7^TH CROSS, 18^TH B MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI PALAYA, J.P. NAGAR 2^ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHU PRAKASH BABU D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, KANDAAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU.

TAHSILDHAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU.

T. NARASIMHAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH @ ANNAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

3(A) N.V. SWAMY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7781 WP No. 29460 of 2023

HC-KAR

3(B) MANJESH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

N. SHARADAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS 3(A), 3(B) AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.540, 10^TH MAIN 38^TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA 5^TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 041.

N. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

MARUTHI PRASAD S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

M. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

N. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

N. SHOBHA D/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE TOGETHER R/AT NO.43/53, 15^TH CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7781 WP No. 29460 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: (I) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN R.A(S).595/2018-19 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUBDIVISION, AT BENGALURU; (II) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2020 PASSED IN R.A(S).595/2018-19 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUBDIVISION, AT BENGALURU AND DISMISS THE APPEAL IN R.A(S).595/2018-19 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CASE NO.R.P.NO.220/2020 DATED 31.10.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

On 3.2.2026, the following order was passed:

“Finally, a week's time is granted at the request of learned counsel for petitioner for compliance of office objections. If office objections are not complied, list this matter on 10.02.2026 for dismissal.”

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7781 WP No. 29460 of 2023

HC-KAR

Matter is called out. There is no representation

for the petitioner. Office objections have not been complied. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

TL

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 25.09.2020 in R.A(S).595/2018-19 (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision) and the order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 (Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District) were liable to be set aside - framed by the petitioner's prayer but not adjudicated, as the petition was dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.low confidence¶33

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶33

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, challenged along with the earlier order dated 25.09.2020 in R.A(S).595/2018-19 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision.¶33
Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District · 31.10.2023
Prior proceeding
Appeal R.A(S).595/2018-19 was decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision by order dated 25.09.2020, which the petitioner sought to set aside and sought dismissal of the appeal.¶33
Prior proceeding
On 3.2.2026 the Court granted a week's time at the request of the petitioner's counsel to comply with office objections, failing which the matter was to be listed on 10.02.2026 for dismissal.¶38

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA¶8
Raghu Prakash Babu D.
respondent
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION¶13
V. Seshu
respondent
TAHSILDHAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK¶14
V. Seshu
respondent
T. NARASIMHAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH @ ANNAYAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY LRS.)¶15
respondent
N.V. SWAMY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH (LR OF RESPONDENT 3)¶16
respondent
MANJESH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH (LR OF RESPONDENT 3)¶19
respondent
N. SHARADAMMA W/O NARASIMHAIAH¶20
respondent
N. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NAGAPPA¶22
respondent
MARUTHI PRASAD S/O LATE NAGAPPA¶23
respondent
M. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA¶24
respondent
N. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE NAGAPPA¶25
respondent
N. SHOBHA D/O LATE NAGAPPA¶26

Coram

AI extract

R Devdasauthor¶35

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 10 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 29 Dec 2023
Case no.: WP/29460/2023
CNR: KAHC010678542023
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: R Devdas
Disposal: Dismissal for Non Compliance of Office Objections
Case type: Writ Petition (KLR-RES)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R Devdas

Sri H R Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Feb 2026
Smt. Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Feb 2026
Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka
9 Feb 2026
P Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Feb 2026
Sri Antony Kolencherry Vs State of Karnataka
10 Feb 2026
Sri Nazeer Sab Vs Deputy Commissioner
10 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Krishnappa v. the Assistant Commissioner, WP/29460/2023 (KA), decided on 10 February 2026.

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

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Order dated 31.10.2023 in Case No.R.P.No.220/2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, challenged along with the earlier order dated 25.09.2020 in R.A(S).595/2018-19 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision.Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District · 31.10.2023
Appeal R.A(S).595/2018-19 was decided by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Subdivision by order dated 25.09.2020, which the petitioner sought to set aside and sought dismissal of the appeal.
On 3.2.2026 the Court granted a week's time at the request of the petitioner's counsel to comply with office objections, failing which the matter was to be listed on 10.02.2026 for dismissal.

View full history

Bench / Coram

R Devdas

Parties & counsel