Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22370 (KAR)

SRI M KRISHNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/57686/2018 · 2026-06-16

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29155 WP No. 57686 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 57686 OF 2018 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI M KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANNAKAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA S ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MALUR TALUK MALUR-563130 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MALUR SUB DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563102 Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29155 WP No. 57686 of 2018 4. THE TAHASILDHAR MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE.N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE W.P. CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DTD 14.09.1981 IN LRF NO.258/74-75 AND LRF NO.1719/75- 76 VIDE ANNX-G.QUASH THE ORDER DTD 27.08.2003 VIDE ANNX-N PASSED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE R-3 IN DISMISSING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FILED UNDER FORM 7-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Subramanya,S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde.N, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29155 WP No. 57686 of 2018 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner herein has filed an application in Form No.7A (Annexure-M) to the competent authority seeking occupancy right in respect of the subject land under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore submits that at this juncture petitioner is not pressing prayer (c) & (d). In this regard, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner has suffered an order before the competent authority at Annexure-G and therefore the same cannot be accepted. 3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-G, it indicates that the petitioner has not produced the re-grant order made by the competent authority in respect of the subject land. It is also to be noted from the observation made by the competent authority at Annexure-N, wherein the said proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29155 WP No. 57686 of 2018 came to be closed on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the re-grant order. 4. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal, Malur, is directed to consider the Form No.7A filed by the petitioner herein (Annexure-M) under Section 77A of the Act at the earliest and complete the entire proceedings within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 5. Having taken note of the observation made by the Respondent No.2 in the order dated 14.09.1981, where the matter has been kept pending on the ground that there is no re-grant order. However, taking into consideration the observation made above, since the petitioner herein has filed Form No.7A, as per Annexure-M, it is the duty of the respondent No.2 to consider the same in the very same proceedings. In that view of the matter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29155 WP No. 57686 of 2018 the respondent No.2 is the competent authority to consider the plea made by the petitioner for re-grant and therefore respondent No.2 is directed to revive the proceedings in LRF No.258/74-75 and LRF No.1719/ 75-76 (Annexure- G) and to take decision in the matter in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55