Allowed

Smt Hamaslekha v. Vs the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/33723/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to prevent dispossession and compel consideration of pending representations regarding her property possession and Hakku Patra under the Ashrya Scheme. The court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus directed respondents to consider specific representations and pass orders within four weeks; restrained respondents from dispossessing petitioner until consideration.

Smt Hamaslekha v Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27960 WP No. 33723 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 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33723 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. HAMASLEKHA V W/O PRUTHVIRAJ D/O LATE VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.22, HOSAHALLI KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD THALAGATTAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.H. RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR DIVISION BBMP, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶18

THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27960 WP No. 33723 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶22

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BBMP, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN SIRKA BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, R4, R5 AND R6;

¶27

SRI. OMKAR KAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO DISPOSES THE PETITIONER WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW AS THE PETITIONER IS IN PEACEFUL POSSESSION IN SY. NO. 2 OF UTTRAHALLI MANAVARTE KAVAL, HOSAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK MEASURING 18 X40 FEET THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. HUD535KHB91 AND VIDE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NO. RHS/GR/214/1991-92 DATED 17.06.1992 AS PER RTC - ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27960 WP No. 33723 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

¶35

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

a. Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to disposes the petitioner without following the due procedure of law as the Petitioner is in peaceful possession in Sy.No.2 of Uttrahalli Manavarte Kaval, Hosahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring 18 x 40 feet the government notification bearing No. HUD535KHB91 and vide order of the Deputy Commissioner No.RHS/GR/214/1991-92 17.06.1992 as per RTC Annexure-B.

¶37

b. Issue appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to consider thefor issuing Hakku Patra under "ASHRYA SCHEME" as per representations dated 14.07.2021 & 15.06.2019 to Respondent No.3, representation dated 15.07.2021 to Respondent No.6 as Annexure-F to F2.

¶38

c. And further be pleased to pass such other order/directions in the circumstances of the present case. representations given by this petitioner.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations

¶40

dated 14.07.2021 and 15.06.2019 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.3 and the representation dated 15.07.2021 was submitted to respondent No.6 at Annexure-F series have not been considered by the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:27960 WP No. 33723 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

respondents. Without such consideration, the petitioner is sought to be dispossessed from the property.

¶45

Whenever any representation is submitted to a government authority, it is required for the said authority to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time either by accepting or rejecting the said representations.

¶46

Needless to say, any order passed would have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done and the representations having been kept pending, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶49

ii) A Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 14.07.2021, 15.06.2019 and 15.07.2021.06.2024 at Annexure-F series respectively, and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27960 WP No. 33723 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

iii)

¶53

Until consideration of the said

¶54

representations, the respondents

¶55

are

¶56

restrained from dispossessing the petitioner.

¶57

iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner.

¶58

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

GJM

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Hamaslekha v. Vs the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Hamaslekha v. Vs the Tahsildar

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

Sri Krishnamurthy S P Vs the State of Karntaka

M/S Resonators Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sln Cleaning and Services Vs the State of Karnataka

Uco Bank Vs State of Karnataka

Ganadeesha Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sarjan Realities Limited Vs the State of Karnataka