Disposed¶89

Mr. Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/9736/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (LA-RES) under Articles 226/227; preliminary notification No.P.W. 8479-82 dated 27.04.1942; Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act 1894; published 14.05.1942 Mysore Gazette; Sy.No.270 Manchanahalli village, Hosa Agrahara Hobli, Mysuru; 3 acres 12 guntas; notified in name of Puttamalegowda; no final notification; O.S.No.50/2017 decree 09.12.2022; appeal by respondent Nos.6-32 pending; disposed subject to appellate outcome; Mahadeva v. State of Karnataka; R. Nataraj; NC: 2026:KHC:29590; HC-KAR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to avail the benefit of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.50/2017, subject however to the outcome of the regular appeal pending before the Appellate Court; prayer to quash the 1942 preliminary notification not granted. ¶89

Mr. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the preliminary notification bearing No.P.W.8479-82 dated 27.04.1942 (Annexure-A), in so far as it relates to Sy.No.270 of Manchanahalli village (3 acres 12 guntas), should be quashed. +1 more

¶83

Court's answer

The prayer to quash Annexure-A (the preliminary notification dated 27.04.1942) was not granted; the petition was disposed of rather than the notification being quashed.

¶89

Ratio / Principle

This writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.50/2017, subject however to the outcome of the regular appeal pending before the Appellate Court.

¶89

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (R. Nataraj J.), WP No. 9736 of 2018 (LA-RES), decided 17 June 2026. Petitioner Mahadeva challenged Annexure-A: preliminary notification No.P.W. 8479-82 dated 27.04.1942 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (R-2) under Section 4(1), Land Acquisition Act 1894, published 14.05.1942 in the then Mysore Gazette (Section-I Part-III, Sl.No.2, p.704), so far as it relates to Sy.No.270 (notified in the name of Puttamalegowda), measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, Manchanahalli village, Hosa Agrahara Hobli, Mysuru District. Counsel stated no final notification followed the preliminary notification and strangers were allowed to occupy the land. Petitioner's O.S.No.50/2017 (declaration and recovery of possession, Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Krishnarajanagara) was decreed on 09.12.2022; respondent Nos.6-32 filed an appeal against the decree. Held: writ petition disposed of, permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of that judgment and decree, subject however to the outcome of the pending regular appeal before the Appellate Court; Annexure-A was not quashed. Notice was not ordered on the legal representatives of respondent Nos.13, 15 and 24.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9736 OF 2018 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O PUTTEGOWDA, BADAKANA KOPPALU VILLAGE HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI K.R.NAGARA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR - 571 105 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE THASILDAR K.R.NAGARA TALUK K.R.NAGARA - 571102 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶19

SRI. RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O RAMEGOWDA

¶20

SRI. MALABAYIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA

¶21

SRI. PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNATHAMMEGOWDA

¶22

SRI. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE MAREGOWDA

¶23

SRI. GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE BOJEGOWDA

¶24

SMT. SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O LATE MAHADEVA

¶25

SRI. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA

¶26

SRI. SANNASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA

¶27

DEAD BY LRS

¶28

13(a) SMT. BHADRAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE SANNASWAMY GOWDA

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

13(b) SMT. PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O NAGARAJU, D/O LATE SANNASWAMY GOWDA, R/AT: DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE HUNGODANAHALLI POST, RATHNAPURI HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571105.

¶32

13(c) SMT. MANGALA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O PRAKASH D/O LATE SANNASWAMY GOWDA

¶33

13(d) SRI. D.S.KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNASWAMY GOWDA

¶34

13(e) SRI. D.S. MANJUNATHA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE SANNASWAMY GOWDA

¶35

RESPONDENT NOS.13(a), (c), (d) AND (e) ARE R/AT: DODDAKOPPALU HOSA BADAVANE VILLAGE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571601.

¶36

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA

¶37

SRI. DODDASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA

¶38

DEAD BY LRS

¶39

15(a) SMT. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE DODDASWAMY GOWDA

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

15(b) SMT. SUMALATHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O SURESH D/O LATE DODDASWAMY GOWDA R/AT BHAGIRATHA NAGARA CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN

¶43

15(c) SMT. RAJINI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE DODDASWAMY GOWDA

¶44

RESPONDENT NOS.15(a) AND 15(c) ARE R/AT: DODDAKOPPALU, HOSA BADAVANE VILLAGE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571601.

¶45

SRI. NAVABH JHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE IMAM SABH,

¶46

17 SRI. SHIVANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA

¶47

SRI. KUMARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE KUNNEGOWDA

¶48

SRI. SHAMBU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGASHETTY

¶49

SRI. JAYARAMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE BOKKEGOWDA

¶50

SRI. JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIKARIGOWDA

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

CHIKKAMARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE MARIGOWDA

¶54

SRI. SWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA

¶55

SRI. KALANINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE KONTHEGOWDA

¶56

DEAD BY LRS

¶57

24(a) SMT. SANNATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, W/O LATE KALANINGEGOWDA

¶58

24(b) SRI. RAVIKUMARA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE KALANINGEGOWDA

¶59

24(c) SMT. ROOPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE KALANINGEGOWDA

¶60

RESPONDENT NO.24(a) TO 24(c) ARE R/AT RAM SANDRA POLICE QUARTERS, CHAMARAJANGARA TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶61

SRI. HUCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA

¶62

SRI. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA

¶63

SRI. REVANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA

¶64

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

SMT. THAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA

¶67

SMT. YASHODA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE MALLIKA

¶68

SRI. HEMESH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU

¶69

SMT. RAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O LATE REVANNA

¶70

SRI. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA

¶71

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 23 & 25 TO 32 ARE R/O DODDAKOPPALU HOSA BADAVANE VILLAGE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571601.

¶72

…RESPONDENTS

¶73

(BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5;

¶74

SRI. G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 32; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O R13(a) TO 13(e), 15(a) TO 15(c), 24(a) TO (c);

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A I.E., THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.P.W. 8479-82, DATED 27.04.1942 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON 14.05.1942 AT SL.NO.2 AT PAGE NO.704 IN THE THEN MYSORE GAZETTE OF SECTION-I PART - III SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND IN

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

SY.NO.270 [NOTIFIED IN THE NAME OF PUTTAMALEGOWDA] MEASURING 3 ACRE 12 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI, TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. THE SAID NOTIFICATION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT OF 1894.

¶80

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

¶81

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶82

ORAL ORDER

¶83

The petitioner has challenged the preliminary notification bearing No.P.W.8479-82 dated 27.04.1942 in so far as it relates to the land in Sy.No.270 of Manchanahalli village, Hosa Agrahara Hobli, Mysuru District, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas.

¶84

When this petition is listed for orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 after issuing the preliminary notification which is impugned in this petition has not issued a final notification and that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have allowed strangers to occupy the land of the petitioner and that the petitioner has filed O.S.No.50/2017 for declaration and for recovery of possession before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajanagara,

¶85

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29590 WP No. 9736 of 2018

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

Mysuru, which is decreed on 09.12.2022. He therefore submits that this petition be disposed off in the light of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.50/2017.

¶88

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 32 submitted that the respondent Nos.6 to 32 have already filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.50/2017.

¶89

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed off , permitting the petitioner to avail the benefit of the judgment and decree granted in O.S.No.50/2017 referred above, subject however to the outcome of the regular appeal pending before the Appellate Court.

¶90

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶91

PMR

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mr. Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mahadeva 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri T R Gangadharaswamy Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri v M Kodandarama Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)

Smt Akkamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Mangala Gowri Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Sri S Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka