Smt. Jayalakshmi a S @ Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 950 OF 2026 (SCST-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI A.S @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O PUTTA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT TULASI DODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NATARAJ BABA K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 1.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶15

THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK,

¶19

BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶20

SRI. G. SIDDALINGAIAH

¶21

S/O LATE GAVI SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, YELACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶22

SRI. KUMAR

¶23

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SIGEKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶24

SMT. B CHOODAMMA W/O LATE NINGAAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SIGEKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 117.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, AAG A/W SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 17.07.2025 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE BEARING NO. PTCL 16/2025 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to

¶34

¶35

Notice to the other respondents is not

¶36

necessary for the following reasons.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the first sale took place in the year 1956 and an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is filed in the year 2024 after delay of nearly 45 years from the date of the commencement of the Act, neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner have considered the question regarding delay. However, at this juncture, learned counsel submits that since the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set-aside by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 17.07.2025, remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, without even

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has allowed the application. Learned counsel seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition and raise a challenge to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel would however submit that the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 09.01.2026 and on the same day the revenue entries have been mutated restoring the revenue records in favour of the original grantee.

¶41

Learned counsel submits that this practice of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar in changing the revenue entries immediately after the orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner should be deprecated. Learned counsel submits that even before the appeal period is elapsed, such an action is being taken by the revenue authorities which is totally illegal.

¶42

There is substance in the submission made by

¶43

the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Since the learned Additional Advocate General

¶47

is before this Court seeking to make submissions on behalf

¶48

of the respondent-authorities, this Court would take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Additional Advocate General to this aspect of the matter. There cannot be any difference of opinion regarding the illegal actions taken by the revenue authorities as stated by the learned counsel for petitioner. Earlier, the Tahsildars would wait till a decision is rendered by the Appellate Court namely the Deputy Commissioner to make any changes pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the recent trend as noticed by this Court is that immediately after the orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the revenue entries are changed without even waiting for the appeal period to lapse. This kind of practice is totally illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Therefore, before disposing of the Writ Petition,

¶52

this Court would direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department to take note of the observations made by this Court in the matter of changes made in the revenue records pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. A circular shall be immediately issued by the Principal Secretary directing all the Tahsildars in the State that no such action shall be taken in the matter of change in the revenue entries consequent to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner resuming and restoring the lands in favour of the original grantee. For that purpose, the Tahsildars will have to wait at least for the appeal period to lapse. It is further required to direct all the Deputy Commissioners that whenever appeals are filed by the aggrieved purchasers, the Deputy Commissioners should pass an order of stay in respect of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner so that revenue entries will not be changed immediately after the orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner till a

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:2520 WP No. 950 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

decision is rendered by the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner.

¶57

With these observations, the Writ Petition is permitted to be withdrawn while reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the recent order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶58

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶59

withdrawn.

¶60

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶61

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Jayalakshmi a S @ Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmi a S @ Jayalakshmi 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 Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathna Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthakumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Padmaja S Vs the State of Karnataka

Kali Bai Vs the State of Karnataka