Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16576 (KAR)

SMT RAJAMMA v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/7475/2024 · 2026-02-27

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12632 WP No. 7475 of 2024 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. 7475 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT RAJAMMA W/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHINNAIYANAPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANOHAR N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KHANDAYA BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. 3. SMT. BHARATHAMMA W/O SHIVARAMAREDDY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12632 WP No. 7475 of 2024 4. SRI. MUNISWAMY S/O LATE AVALAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 5. SRI. APPAJAPPA S/O LATE AVALAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 6. SRI. VENKATASWAMYRAJU S/O SHAMARAJU, AGED MAJOR, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT: CHINNAIYANAPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING /SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ITS ORDER DTD 22.04.2020 IN SC-SC APPEAL NO.178/2011-12 (ANNEXURE - D). 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:12632 WP No. 7475 of 2024 If the office objections are not complied with, list this matter for final 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.: 11