Allowed¶44

Sri M B Ponnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/33143/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Karnataka High Court; writ petition natural resources/revenue; Articles 226 227; Deputy Commissioner Kodagu; Revision Petition No.23/2024; Annexure-K; RTC columns 9 and 12; Survey No.81/40; 3 acre 60 guntas; Poradu Village; Hudikeri Hobli; Ponnampet Taluk; Madikeri; late M.C. Bheemaiah; M.B. Ponnappa; Smt. A.N. Kamalakumari impersonated maid servant; Smt. Nandini M.B.; denial of natural justice / hearing; set aside and remanded for fresh consideration; E.S. Indiresh, J.; decided 10 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure-K) in Revision Petition No.23/2024 set aside and matter remitted to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision after hearing all parties ¶44

Sri M B Ponnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27722 WP NO.33143 OF 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.33143 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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

¶10

SRI. M.B. PONNAPPA S/O LATE M.C. BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT PORADU VILLAGE, BADAGAKERI POST, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 249. PRESENTLY R/AT: NO.8109, HIGH POINT TRAIL, WHITE LAKE, MICHIGAN - 483 86. UNITED STATES AMERICA REP. BY ITS S.P.A. HOLDER SRI. BHARATH V. S/O SRI. VENKATESHMURTHY V. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.49, 6^TH MAIN ROAD P.G. HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003. (BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY T.M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27722 WP NO.33143 OF 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI - 571 201.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION, MADIKERI,

¶18

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR PONNAMPET TALUK, PONNAMPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

¶20

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR HUDIKERI HOBLI, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 216.

¶21

SMT. NANDINI M.B. W/O SUNIL BIDDAPPA P.M., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT MOTHI LAYOUT, GONIKOPPA, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571218.

¶22

SMT. A.N. KAMALAKUMARI (FORMER MAID SERVANT) W/O LATE. M.C. BHEEMAIAH (IMPERSONATED), AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT HARIHARA VILLAGE, HUDIKERI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 249.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ESWARAPPA B.J., AGA FOR R1 TO R5; R6 AND R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27722 WP NO.33143 OF 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19^TH NOVEMBER, 2024 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.23/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AND TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND CONTINUE THE SAME IN THE RTC COLUMN NOS.9 AND 12 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.81/40 MEASURING 3 ACRE 60 GUNTAS SITUATE AT PORADU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI POST AND HOBLI, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT; AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19^th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.23/2024; inter alia sought for directions to respondents 4 and 5 to delete the name of the respondent No.7 and to mutate the name of the petitioner and continue the same in the RTC column Nos.9 and 12 in respect of the schedule property.

¶31

Heard Sri. Venkata Reddy T.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Eswarappa B.J., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:27722 WP NO.33143 OF 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Sri. Venkata Reddy T.M., learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being a son of late M.C. Bheemaiah, has not been heard in the Revision Petition filed by the respondent No.7 before the respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, learned counsel sought for interference of this Court.

¶37

Sri. Eswarappa B.J., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 sought justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶38

Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the lis between the parties is with regard to claim of schedule property left behind by late M.C. Bheemaiah, who is the father of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner herein has not been heard in the matter before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the respondent No.2. Therefore, I pass the following:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:27722 WP NO.33143 OF 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i) Writ Petition allowed;

¶44

(ii) Order dated 19^th November, 2024 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.23/2024 is hereby set-aside; and matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶45

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶46

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri M B Ponnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M B Ponnappa 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S B Munegowda Vs Tahsildar

Smt. Shankaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Avalappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. K Lakshmi Pavana Vs the State of Karnataka

Benedictne Sisters of St Lioba Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ronald Vijay D Souza, Vs the State of Karnataka