Allowed¶56

Smt. Saraswathamma v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WP/7528/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Writ Petition No. 7528 of 2020 (GM-RES), decided 10 March 2026, Lalitha Kanneganti J - Tahsildar's communication/order No. M.A.G.CR/1/2020-21 dated 14-05-2020 directing rural police to dispossess a woman cultivator of land gifted to a Government Higher Primary School (SDMC) held to be issued without authority of law; AGA conceded want of jurisdiction; writ of certiorari allowed and the order set aside. Keywords: Article 226, certiorari, Tahsildar, police protection, dispossession, geni/rent, gift deed, SDMC, ultra vires, Shikaripura, Shivamogga.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 14.05.2020 issued by the 1st respondent Tahsildar set aside; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶56

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs the Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14311 WP No. 7528 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7528 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE HARALENNE SHIVAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶11

R/O CHUNCHINAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK

¶12

SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 427

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAIAH D.G., ADVOCATE FOR

¶15

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR

¶19

SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIKARIPURA

¶20

SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 427

¶21

THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:14311 WP No. 7528 of 2020

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIKARIPURA

¶26

SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 427

¶27

3. THE SECRETARY

¶28

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT MANAGING COMMITTEE (SDMC)

¶29

GOVT. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL CHUNCHINAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TALUK

¶30

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 427.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶33

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 TAHASILDAR BY HIS ORDER DTD.14.5.2020 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:14311 WP No. 7528 of 2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶41

"I. Issue writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Tahsildar by his order No M.A.G.CR/1/2020-21 dated 14-05-2020, which is produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition.

¶42

II. Please to issue any order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit under these circumstances in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's late husband and prior to him his father were the tenants and cultivating the agricultural land and paying geni every year. The land owner had gifted the agricultural land in favour of the Government Higher Primary School through registered gift deed dated 07.08.1955 in order to generate income for the said School. Even thereafter, the petitioner's husband continued to remain in possession and cultivated the same. After the demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner and her

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14311 WP No. 7528 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

children continued to cultivate the land on the same terms for their livelihood. The third respondent had issued the notice and fixed the rent. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner was regularly paying rent of Rs.800/- to the third respondent. Subsequently, the third respondent all of a sudden stopped issuing notices demanding the rent/ geni of the land. Despite the same, the petitioner claims to have paid entire geni amount.

¶47

It is further stated that when the petitioner was doing the agricultural work on the land, the second respondent–Police came to the land and directed the petitioner to vacate the land immediately. Upon enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent–Tahsildar had directed the police to vacate the petitioner.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the first respondent Tahsildar has no authority to direct police and provide protection or for vacating the petitioner from the land. It is contended that such action amounts to an high-handed act of the first respondent, which has no authority of law. It is submitted that it is well-settled

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:14311 WP No. 7528 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

law that the first respondent Tahsildar has no such powers. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court to set aside the impugned communication.

¶53

The learned AGA appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not deny the fact that the first respondent Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue impugned communication dated 14.05.2020.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned communication has been issued without any authority of law. Hence, this Court is passing the following;

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned communication dated 14.05.2020.

¶57

ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶59

SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt. Saraswathamma v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saraswathamma v. the Tahsildar

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

M.H. Malleshappa Vs the Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Mr. M.D. Mustar Ahmed a Vs the Ujjivan Small Finance Bank

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the Authorized Officer and Manager Central Bank of India

M/S Fouress Foods Vs the Branch Manager Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Smt. L. Shivamma Vs the City Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M/S Srinivasa Milk Centre and Provisional Stores Vs M/S Union Bank