Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33437 (KAR)

L SHANKAREGOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/20549/2026 · 2026-07-31

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.20549 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. L. SHANKAREGOWDA SON OF LATE A LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 2. PANCHALINGEGOWDA SON OF LATE A LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE (KERAKODU VILLAGE), KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 VIDHNA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 404. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION. MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 426. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KERAKODU KERAKODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571446. 6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KERAKODU VILLAGE, KERAKODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 446. 7. PUTTASWAMY SON OF LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE, KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 MANDYA - 571 446. 8. SHIVALINGEGOWDA SON OF LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE, KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. 9. ANAND A.L. SON OF LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE, KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. 10. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE, KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. 11. SMT. A R SAVITHA DAUGHTER OF RAJANNA WIFE OF RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT ANASOSOLU VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571446. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 12. SMT. A.R. ANITHA DAUGHTER OF RAJANNA WIFE OF RAMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT ANASOSOLU VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK-571446. 13. A.R. MADHUKUMAR, SON OF LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT ANKANADODDI VILLAGE, KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 446. 14. SMT. M.R. SARITHA DAUGHTER OF LATE RAMANNA WIFE OF SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT BYDARAHALLI VILLAGE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 160. 15. SMT. SHIVARATHNAMMA WIFE OF MASTIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT ANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE KERAGOD HOBLI, MANDYA - 571 446. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 16. SMT. THAYAMMA WIFE OF KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, BASARALU, MANDYA - 571 426 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. Y. BHASKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2026 PASSED IN RP NO. 383 OF 2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA (ANNX-J) AND ORDER DATED 03.09.2024 PASSED IN R MIS. NO.1048 OF 2022 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA (ANNEXURE-H). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 07.04.2026 in R.P.No.383/2024 (Annexure-J) passed by - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 respondent No.2 and the order dated 03.09.2024 in R.Mis.No.1048/2022 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.3. 3. It is contended by Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the schedule in the registered Sale Deed dated 16.07.1964 and the registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.1966, that both the authorities have committed error in not construing the fact that the petitioner herein has retained 2 guntas of land after making sale of the schedule properties as per Annexure- B and C to the Writ Petition and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4 Per contra, Sri. Y. Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9, referred to Annexure-A and submitted that five guntas of land has already been utilised for the purpose of road and therefore, the petitioner herein have not retained any land in the land bearing Sy.No.803/29 of Keregodu Village, Mandya Taluk and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 5. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, sought to justify the impugned orders. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on consideration of the impugned orders passed by the respondent - authorities, would indicate that the petitioner herein has sold the land by way of two registered Sale Deeds dated 16.07.1964 and 24.08.1966 as per Annexures-B and C, respectively. 7. It is also forthcoming from the impugned orders that there is 5 guntas of kharab land and same has been utilised for road and that apart, it is also not in dispute that respondents herein have preferred O.S.No.213/2022 before the competent Civil Court. In that view of the matter, as disputed questions of fact are involved in the Writ Petition, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition is rejected. 9. It is made clear that the above finding recorded by this Court shall not come in the way of the petitioners herein in - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010445352026 NC: 2026:KHC:40357 WP No. 20549 of 2026 establishing right over the property in question in a manner known to law. 10. It is also made clear that it is open for the petitioners to establish right over the land in question independent of the view mentioned above and thereafter approach the respondent - authority for any modification in the revenue records. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24