SMT RAJESWARI W/O BENUBATG GHATAD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/101771/2024 · 2025-09-26
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52904 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52904 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13550 WP No. 101771 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101771 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. RAJESWARI W/O BENUBATG GHATAD AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R./O. 391/A, PATIL GALLI, HALAGA, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.
2.
SMT. ASHWINI D/O UMESH KALMANI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #989, VANASHIRI NAGAR, BLOCK NO. 29, SATTUR DHARWAD, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD, PIN 580009.
3.
SMT. ANITA W/O RAJSHEKHAR DAMBLE AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. #19160, HIREPETH OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD 580020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG, DIST. GADAG.
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13550 WP No. 101771 of 2024
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, DIST. GADAG.
4.
TASHILDAR/TALUKA MAGISTRATE GADAG TALUKA, DIST. GADAG. …RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BHOOMI/VAHI/594/2022-23/415, DATED. 11/08/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. B. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO ENTERED PETITIONERS NAME IN THE PROPERTY BEARING RS. NO. 238/B PLOT NO. 34, MEASURING 161.50 SQ.MTRS AND BUILT AREA 58.06 AT THE REVENUE RECORDS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Despite the order dated 09.09.2025, office objections have not been complied with.
2. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the matter.
3. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
GAB/CT:PA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16