Allowed¶41

Smt. v. Hamsa Veni v the Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/39086/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ petition (LB-BMP) under Articles 226 and 227; Hakku Patra issuance; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP); representation dated 18.06.2024 pending over one and half years; duty of government authority to consider representations within reasonable time and pass reasoned orders; mandamus with 30-day deadline; entitlement expressly left open; Suraj Govindaraj, J.; petitioner V Hamsa Veni v. Commissioner, BBMP and Assistant Revenue Officer, JJ Nagara Sub-Division.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G and pass necessary orders within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order, with no opinion expressed on the petitioner's entitlement. ¶41

Smt. v Hamsa Veni Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were required to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure-G) seeking issuance of Hakku Patra and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time.

¶30

Court's answer

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

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G had been pending without disposal for more than one and half years, i.e., beyond a reasonable period, warranting judicial intervention.

¶38

Key takeaways

If any order is passed in response to a representation, the order would have to be accompanied by reasons.obiter¶38
A mandamus was issued directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶41
The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner to issuance of the Hakku Patra; that question was left open for the respondents to decide.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 39086 of 2025 (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), decided 3 February 2026: The petitioner sought issuance of a Hakku Patra by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike; her representation dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure-G) remained unconsidered for more than one and a half years. The Court held that whenever a representation is submitted to a government authority, the authority must consider it and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting it, and that any such order must be accompanied by reasons. Observing the pendency of over one and a half years, the Court allowed the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass necessary orders within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order, while expressly refraining from expressing any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to the Hakku Patra.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6646 WP No. 39086 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 39086 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. V HAMSA VENI W/O. LATE C NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. NO. 45/3, 7TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.R. SUNIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE NR SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002.

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER

¶16

JJ NAGARA SUB- DIVISION,

¶17

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 053.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. OMKAR KAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE THE HAKKU PATRA TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BASED ON

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:6646 WP No. 39086 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

REPRESENTATION DATED 18.6.2024 AT ANNEXURE-G WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri. Omkarkambi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶29

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶30

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to issue the Hakku Patra to the petitioner for the schedule property based on representation dated 18.6.2024 at Annexure-G without any further delay.

¶31

(b) Pass any other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the Interest of Justice.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G is submitted by the petitioner for issuance of Hakku Patra is not being considered despite a long lapse of time.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:6646 WP No. 39086 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

reasonable period of time either by accepting or rejecting the said representation.

¶38

Needless to say, if any order is passed, the same would have to be accompanied by reasons. In the present matter, the representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G has been pending for more than one and half years. As such, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶41

ii) A Mandamus is issued directing respondents to consider the representation dated 18.06.2024 at Annexure-G and pass necessary orders within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

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

¶43

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶44

GJM

¶45

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Smt. v. Hamsa Veni v the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Hamsa Veni v the Commissioner

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.Shaik Roshan Suhail Vs the Commissioner

Syed Jameel Ahamed Vs the Secretary

District Wakf Officer Vs State of Karnataka

Mis Anoosha K R Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri P Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K G Gangadharaiah Vs Regional Commissioner