SMT. GANGAMMAYYA @ PARVATHAMMA v. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
WP/38103/2019 · 2026-02-11
Suraj Govindaraj
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1005 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1005 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8714 WP No. 38103 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 38103 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGAMMAYYA @ PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR & D/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/AT HALANURU VILLAGE TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101 …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH M., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])
AND:
1.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH TUMAKURU TALUK & DISTRICT-572 101
2.
GRAMA PANCHAYATH MALLASANDRA REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101
3.
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH MALLASANDRA TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101
4. SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O SIDDAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
5. LEPAKSHI D/O SIDDAMALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT HALANURU VILLAGE, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8714 WP No. 38103 of 2019
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.A.D.RAMANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE QUASH THE IMPUGNED MEMORANDUM DTD 25.6.2019 ISSUD BY THE R-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND AS SUCH VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Despite the order dated 09.01.2026, none appears for the petitioner though called twice once in the forenoon session and once in the afternoon session.
2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4