Dismissed¶43

Sri.Shivananda H.V. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026WP/35025/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shivananda H.V. v. State of Karnataka and others; WP No. 35025 of 2025 (KLR-RES); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Justice R Devdas; decision dated 12-02-2026; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; prayer to direct Tahasildar Koppa Taluk, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner Chikkamangaluru District to protect petitioner's possession of Survey No. 168, Site No. 31, Hariharapura Village, Koppa Taluk, against interference by respondents No. 5 to 11; counsel filed memo to withdraw with liberty to make fresh representation before Tahsildar; petition dismissed as withdrawn; withdrawal of writ petition; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk. ¶43

Sri.Shivananda H.V. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No. 2 to 4 should be directed to take immediate and effective action to protect the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Survey No. 168, Site No. 31, Hariharpur Village, Hariharpur Hobli, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, and to prevent unlawful interference by respondents No. 5 to 11 (issue raised by the prayer; not adjudicated as the petition was withdrawn).

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The Court took on record the memo filed by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent-Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk.

¶38

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 35025 of 2025 (KLR-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, filed by Sri Shivananda H.V. seeking directions to respondents No. 2 to 4 (Tahasildar, Koppa Taluk; Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamangaluru District) to protect his peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Survey No. 168, Site No. 31, Hariharpur Village, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, and to prevent unlawful interference by respondents No. 5 to 11. At the preliminary hearing stage, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent-Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk; the memo was taken on record subject to just exceptions, and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty reserved. Oral order of the single member, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Devdas, dated 12 February 2026. No substantive issue was decided and no finding was recorded on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8991 WP No. 35025 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 35025 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.SHIVANANDA H.V. S/O. LATE. VENKATARAMANA PANDITH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT. HARIHARAPURA, HARIHARAPURA POST, KOPPA TALUK - 577 120.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY. CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 575 001.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR, KOPPA TALUK, KOPPA - 577 126.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577 101.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8991 WP No. 35025 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577 101.

¶20

SRI. RADHAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH HEGADE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. IRSHAD, S/O. SHEIK AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. NITHIN, S/O. LATE. MANJUNATHA HEGADE, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. PRAMODA, S/O. LATE. RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. ADARSHA, S/O. SHANKRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. DINESHA POOJARY, S/O. BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. MOHAMMED JALEEL, NOT KNOW THE FATHER NAME, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶27

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 11 ALL ARE R/AT. HARIHARAPURA, HARIHARAPURA POST,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8991 WP No. 35025 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

KOPPA TALUK. - 577 120.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IDNIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 4 TO TAKE IMMEDIATE AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO PROTECT THE PETITIONERS PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SURVEY NO. 168, SITE NO. 31, SITUATED AT HARIHARPUR VILLAGE, HARIHARPUR HOBLI, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, AND TO PREVENT ANY UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE BY RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 11. ANNX-A, A1 AND A2 AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo

¶37

seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent - Tahsildar, Koppa Taluk.

¶38

The memo is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:8991 WP No. 35025 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as

¶43

withdrawn while reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Koppa

¶44

Taluk.

¶45

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶46

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri.Shivananda H.V. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shivananda H.V. v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajithkumar a v Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. a. M. Murali Mohan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Ganapathi Silks, Vs Smt. Sandhya Ravindranath

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri P Raju Vs State of Karnataka