Smt. Jalajakshi @ Jayalakshmi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. Jalajakshi @ Jayalakshmi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the compromise petition; the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order dated 09.12.2024 in Appeal No.183/2009 set aside; the competent authority's order dated 24.09.2002 in LRT No.1168:1150/2000-01 restored; Tahsildar directed to effect mutation and revenue entries accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 09.12.2024 should be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3.

Court's answer

The compromise petition between the petitioner and respondent No.3, supported by verification affidavits, is lawful and deserves to be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition entered into between the parties.

Key takeaways

The order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.183/2009 is set aside.ratio¶¶42
The order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the competent authority in LRT No.1168:1150/2000-01 is restored.ratio¶¶42
The jurisdictional Tahsildar shall carry out the necessary mutation and revenue entries in accordance with the restored order and in terms of the compromise petition, in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.38522 of 2025 (LR), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J.), assailed the judgment dated 09.12.2024 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No. 183/2009. During pendency, the petitioner and respondent No.3 amicably settled their dispute regarding claim for occupancy rights over the subject land through a compromise petition supported by verification affidavits. Holding the compromise lawful, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise, set aside the Tribunal's judgment dated 09.12.2024, restored the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the competent authority in LRT No.1168:1150/2000-01, and directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to carry out the necessary mutation and revenue entries in accordance with the restored order and the compromise petition, in accordance with law.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32656 WP No. 38522 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.38522 OF 2025 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JALAJAKSHI @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE B.K. RAMANATHA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMI KRUPA, D.NO.3-25/9, GANDHINAGARA DHOTA, KUNJENTHABAIL VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575015.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CHAYA S A Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

COURT OF M.S. BUILDING, KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS AND HEADQUARTERS ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE BANK ROAD, MANGALURU,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32656 WP No. 38522 of 2025

HC-KAR

DAKSHINA KANNADA- 575 001.

SRI. KRISHNAPPA K., S/O MAJANNA MAISTRY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT SILVER GATE, KULSHEKARA MANGALURU - 575 005.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP.FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MUKUND PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVENUE APPEAL NO. 183/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, in this writ petition, has assailed the order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Appeal No.183/2009 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, produced as Annexure–A.

I have heard Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32656 WP No. 38522 of 2025

HC-KAR

Hegde N., High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Mukund Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties, invited the attention of the Court to the compromise petition entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in respect of the claim for occupancy rights over the subject land. They submitted that the private parties have amicably settled the dispute and have prayed that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the

attention of the Court to paragraph 4 of the compromise petition and submitted that the

compromise petition is supported by the verification affidavits of the parties. It is therefore prayed that the

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32656 WP No. 38522 of 2025

HC-KAR

compromise petition be accepted and appropriate

orders be passed.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the compromise petition and the affidavits filed in support thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the compromise is lawful and deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition entered into between the parties. Consequently, the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.183/2009 is hereby set aside, and the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the competent authority, in LRT No.1168:1150/2000-01 is restored.

The jurisdictional Tahsildar shall carry out the necessary mutation and revenue entries in

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32656 WP No. 38522 of 2025

HC-KAR

accordance with the restored order and in terms of the

compromise petition, in accordance with law.

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15