Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16909 (KAR)

SRI NAGESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/21878/2023 · 2026-02-27

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12635 WP No. 21878 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. 21878 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAGESH S/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADIGINABELE VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKARA H M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANHALLI TALUK. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12635 WP No. 21878 of 2023 4. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE. 5. SMT. BETTAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OBALAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 28.8.2023 IN RP.NO.154/2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC 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:12635 WP No. 21878 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.: 9