Smt. Shakuntala Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 28^TH OCTOBER, 2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; DIRECT THE

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:30036 WP NO.33658 OF 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06^TH OCTOBER, 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND MUTATE THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Official Memorandum dated 28^th October, 2025 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06^th October, 2025 (Annexure-H) to mutate the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner in respect of the schedule property.

¶26

Heard Sri. Bhadrinath R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶27

Sri. Bhadrinath R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners referred to the representation dated 06^th October, 2025 (Annexure-H) filed by the petitioner and submitted that, though the petitioner has made an application/representation to the respondent No.3, seeking change of Khata in respect of the schedule property in favour of him based on the judgment and decree dated 09^th September, 2025 (Annexure-G) passed

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:30036 WP NO.33658 OF 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.2243/2024, the respondent No.3 has not considered the same and issued the impugned official memorandum. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned Official Memorandum dated 20^th October, 2025 (Annexure-J), it is forthcoming that the Fact Finding Committee has been constituted by the respondent No.2 to look in to the grievance of the petitioner based on the judgment and decree dated 09^th September, 2025 passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.2243/2024. However, it is a settled principle in law that, once the judgment and decree is passed by the Court, it is the duty of the competent authority to implement the same unless, it is setaside by the Appellate Court. It is forthcoming that, there is no order/judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appropriate proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.2243/2024. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the impugned Official Memorandum dated 28^th October, 2025 (Annexure-J) issued by the

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30036 WP NO.33658 OF 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent No.2, constituting a Fact Finding Committee is without application of mind, which shows that the respondent No.2 is sitting over the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No.2243/2024 dated 09^th September, 2025. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

(i) Writ Petition allowed;

¶38

(ii) Official Memorandum dated 28^th October, 2025 (Annexure-J) issued by the respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside;

¶39

(iii) The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06^th October, 2025 (Annexure-H) and mutate the revenue entries in respect of the schedule property in the name of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶40

Sd/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶41

ARK

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Smt. Shakuntala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala 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

Sri. C Manju, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chandramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayana N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Seetharama Shetty Vs Deputy Director of Land Records

Sri. Tahir Ali Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. B R Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka