Disposed

Chinnaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/38928/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a 1999 order altering mutation entries, citing delay and lack of inquiry. Court noted 26-year lapse and petitioner's knowledge since 2015. Held opportunity of hearing was missing in impugned order. Directed respondent to issue notice and grant hearing within six months before taking final decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.4 to issue notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within six months before taking a final decision on the matter.

Chinnaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.38928 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHINNASWAMY

¶10

SON OF LATE DOMMAGOWDAR @DUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS RESIDING AT SANTHE BEEDHI, 2^ND WARD, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 505, 5^TH FLOOR, GATE - 3, MS BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶21

SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA M. WIFE OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. GEETHA R. DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶24

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI B.R., DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶25

SAMPATH B.R. SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶26

B R SAMPATH KUMAR, SON OF LATE DO RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. PREMA B R DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

12. ROOPESH B R

SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY

¶34

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶35

13. PRATEESH B R

¶36

SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 106.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.1999 PASSED IN LND(A) CR NO.88 OF 1994-95 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANNXD) AS FAR AS PETITIONER I SCONCERNED.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

In this writ petition, the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.03.1999 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2.

¶48

Heard Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶49

Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned order dated 09.03.1999 at Annexure-D, contended that the respondent-authorities have changed the mutation entries without conducting any enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the respondent-authorities seeking restoration of the mutation entries. It is further contended that a perusal of Annexure-D would

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

indicate that the respondent-authorities were required

¶53

to conduct an enquiry before taking any decision. Therefore, it is pleaded that, without conducting such enquiry, the respondents altered the mutation entries as such, he seeks interference by this Court.

¶54

Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-D was passed about 26 years ago. He further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the change in the revenue entries at least from the year 2015. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been made out in the writ petition for delay in questioning the same, and thereafter argued that, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

5. It is further submitted by learned High Court

¶59

Government Pleader that notice was issued to the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure-E. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was afforded to him cannot be accepted.

¶60

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by respondent No.2 in Annexure-D, it is evident that the respondent-authorities had taken a decision to

¶61

examine the grant made in favour of persons who had violated the conditions of grant relating to lands belonging to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this regard, the Tahsildar, Anekal, was directed to examine each case in detail. The said order was passed in the year 1999 and

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

therefore, same cannot ordinarily be interfered with after a lapse of 26 years, particularly when the petitioner was aware of the same at least from the year 2015.

¶65

However, the grievance of the petitioner is

¶66

that, pursuant to Annexure-D, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to him before taking any adverse decision affecting his rights. To that extent, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.4 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued by respondent No.2 under the order dated 09.03.1999.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

The entire exercise shall be completed

¶71

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ

¶72

petition stands disposed of .

¶73

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Chinnaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

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 Narasingappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Murthy N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sukumar N Rao Vs the Assistant Director of

Sri.a.S.Mani @ a.Susai Mani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sriramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

H. P. Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka