Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15100 (KAR)

JOHN BAPTIST REBELLO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/20318/2023 · 2026-02-27

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12550 WP No. 20318 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 20318 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: JOHN BAPTIST REBELLO S/O LATE JOSEPH REBELLO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A VITAL MUDNUR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH RAI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12550 WP No. 20318 of 2023 4. KORAGA POOJARI S/O RAMA POOJARI, R/A KUNDADKA HOUSE, VITTAL MUDNUR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 5. NOBERT REBELLO S/O DENNIS REBELLO, R/A VITTAL MUDNUR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 18.01.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.1325/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER On 13.02.2026, the following order was passed: "Finally, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner for compliance of office objections. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12550 WP No. 20318 of 2023 If the office objections are not complied with, list this matter for dismissal on 27.02.2026." 2. Matter is called out. There is no representation for the petitioner. 3. Office objections have not been complied with. 4. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7