Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10054 (KAR)

SRI. MAMBADI RAMAKRISHNA BHAT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/44652/2016 · 2026-04-10

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20189 WP No. 44652 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 44652 OF 2016 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI. MAMBADI RAMAKRISHNA BHAT S/O SHYAM BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. M. SHANKARI AMMA W/O LATE MAMBADI RAMKRISHNA BHAT AGE: 63 YEARS, R/AT MAMBADI HOUSE, KAROPADI VILLAGE & POST, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 279. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDANESHWARA M G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANTWAL, BY ITS CHAIMAN, BANTWAL TALUK – 574 211. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20189 WP No. 44652 of 2016 TYAMPANNA PURUSHA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 3. SMT. RADHA W/O LATE TYAMPANNA PURUSHA, MAJOR, R/AT ARASALIKE MANE, KAROPADI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 279. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 4. SMT. KAMALAKSHI W/O. SRIDHARA PURUSHA, MAJOR, R/AT MUGERADDA MANE, PUTTUR TALUK - 517 583. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SHARADA W/O SHIVARAMA, R/AT ARASALIKE MANE, KAROPADI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK - 574 279. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGO FOR R1 & R2; SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.TNC 5686/74-75 [WRONGLY SHOWN AS TNC 1778/75-76] VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20189 WP No. 44652 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner and learned Counsel for the petitioner have filed a memo dated 08.04.2026 stating that the parties have amicably settled the matter and therefore, the petitioner does press the writ petition. 2. The memo is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL