- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 7158 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.N. PRAKASH S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SRI. H.N. HARISH S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 3. SMT. LAKSHAMMA W/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O HOLEHARALAHALLI VILLAGE GOVINAKOVI 2ND HOBLI, HONALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577217. 4. SMT. SARITHA W/O MANJUNATHA D/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O ANAGODI VILLAGE SVEHALLI VILLAGE, HONALI TALUK, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 217. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE; PETITIONERS NO.3 AND 4 ARE DELETED V/O DATED 01.04.2022) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE HARIHAR ROAD (SH 76) PRINCE JAYACHAMARAJA WODEYAR DAVANAGERE - 577001. 2. THE ASST COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT SUB DIVISION NEW PUBLIC OFFICERS PREMISES PB ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577001. 3. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HOLEHARALAHALLI VILLAGE GOVINAKOVI 2ND HOBLI, HONALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. JAHNAVI MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR STI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2022 PASSED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER,DAVANGERE DISTRICT, NEW PUBLIC OFFICERS BUILDING, PB ROAD, DAVANGERE, PASSED VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE P1 AND P2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. 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 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 04.01.2022, (Annexure-M), passed by the respondent No.1, inter-alia sought for allowing the appeal filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-L. 2. Heard Sri. V. B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Jahnavi - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 Manjunath, for Sri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 3. Sri. V. B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, fair opportunity has not been extended to the petitioners herein, and no oral evidence has been recorded by respondent No.1 during the proceedings. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the respondent No.3 has executed, registered Deed of Family Arrangement dated 16.03.2019 (Annexure-C) in favour of his brother and the said aspect has been ignored by the respondent-authorities. 4. Per contra, Smt. Jahnavi Manjunath, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, sought to justify the impugned order stating that, there is no impediment for the petitioners to pay the maintenance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 5. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 would indicate that, no oral evidence has been recorded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, as per Annexures-M and K respectively to the writ petition. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another reported (2022) 17 SCR 876 and paragraph 14 of reads as under: "14. Careful perusal of the petition under Section 23 filed by Respondent 1 shows that it is not even pleaded that the release deed was executed subject to a condition that the transferees (the daughters of Respondent 1) would provide - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 the basic amenities and basic physical needs to Respondent 1. Even in the impugned order dated 22-5-2018 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, no such finding has been recorded. It seems that oral evidence was not adduced by the parties. As can be seen from the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, immediately after a reply was filed by the appellant that the petition was fixed for arguments. Effecting transfer subject to a condition of providing the basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor — senior citizen is sine qua non for applicability of sub-section (1) of Section 23. In the present case, as stated earlier, it is not even pleaded by Respondent 1 that the release deed was executed subject to such a condition." 7. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as there is no oral evidence recorded by the respondent-authorities, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the result is pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed; ii) Order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.2, and order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42875 WP No. 7158 of 2022 04.01.2022, (Annexure-M) passed by the respondent No.1 are hereby set aside and matter is remitted to the respondent No.2, to re-consider the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to both the sides, in the light of the observation made above. iii) Respondent No.2 shall conclude the matter at the earliest. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45