Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60673 (KAR)

REKHA W/O HITESH OSWAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/107062/2024 · 2025-09-24

Suraj Govindaraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13167 WP No. 107062 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107062 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: REKHA W/O HITESH OSWAL AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAMKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOTE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGVI TQ.DIST. BELAGAVI 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMKHANDI, SUB DIVISION JAMKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT 5. THE TAHASILDAR JAMKHANDI TQ. JAMKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOTE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13167 WP No. 107062 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) DECLARE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HOLDING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS A B KHARAB LAND VESTED TO STATE GOVERNMENT IS ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.B) DECLARE THAT WASTE AND UNCULTIVATED LAND I.E., SY.NO. 247/1 TOTALLY MEASURING 303 ACRES 37 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KONNUR VILLAGE, JAMKHANDI TALUK BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT, GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY PERSONAL INAMS ABOLITION ACT 1952, THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO INTERMEDDLE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS AND ACCORDINGLY WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 11.09.2025, office objections have not been complied with. 2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. 3. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/ CT:PA/ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 129