Dismissed¶47

Smt B S Vijayaprabha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2026WP/49605/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), WP No. 49605 of 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR), decided 24-06-2026 by E.S. Indiresh J. Mutation entries M.R.Nos.23, 24, 25 of 2004-05 founded on registered sale deeds dated 05.04.2004; Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 07.05.2010 in RP 205/06-07 interfering with Assistant Commissioner's order upheld; writ petition dismissed; petitioner permitted to establish her right over the property in a manner known to law. Parties: Smt. B S Vijayaprabha v. State of Karnataka and others, including Vignan Educational Foundation (K S Subba Rao, Managing Trustee) and the legal representatives of the late Kasthuri Chennaveeraiah.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to establish her right over the property in question in a manner known to law. ¶47

Smt B S Vijayaprabha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31379 WP No. 49605 of 2012

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 49605 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT B S VIJAYAPRABHA W/O DR A PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS NO.1-C, SARATHY APARTMENTS NO.48, 13^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560034.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. S SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

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

¶15

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH ADDL. TALUK YELAHANKA, BANGALORE.

¶18

SRI K S SUBBA RAO S/O KASTHURI CHENNAVEERAIAH MANAGING TRUSTEE

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31379 WP No. 49605 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

VIGNAN EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION NO.573, HONGASANDRA BANGALORE-560029.

¶22

SRI KASTHURI CHENNAVEERAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S

¶23

6(A) SRI KASTURI KOTAIAH CHOWDARY S/O LATE KASTURI CHANNAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶24

6(B) SRI KASTURI BRAHMANAIDU S/O LATE KASTURI CHANNAVEERAIAH

¶25

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶26

6(C) SRI K SRIHARI RAO@ KASTURI HARIBABU S/O LATE KASTURI CHANNAVEERAIAH

¶27

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶28

ALL ARE R/AT KONDAPATURU VILLAGE GUNTURU TALUK AND DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA. FOR R1 TO R4: SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6(A-C))

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 7.5.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DIST, BANGALORE IN RP 205/06-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:31379 WP No. 49605 of 2012

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶38

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-G).

¶39

Having heard Smt.S.Susheela, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Narayana Swamy P.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Latha.S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 (a-c) and on careful consideration of the writ papers, it would indicate that, M.R.Nos.23, 24 and 25 of 2004-05 has been made based on the registered Sale Deeds dated 05.04.2004.

¶40

In that view of the matter, as the mutation has been

¶41

made based on the registered instruments, I am of the view that the respondent No.2 has rightly interfered with

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:31379 WP No. 49605 of 2012

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the order passed by respondent No.3. Therefore, I am of

¶46

the view that no interference is called for in this petition.

¶47

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to establish her right over the property in question in a manner known to law.

¶48

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47

Smt B S Vijayaprabha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B S Vijayaprabha v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.T.N.Radhakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Janaki Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Govindappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. K Nandakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayana Swamy C N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chikkanna Vs State of Karnataka