Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 50558 (KAR)

HANUMANTHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAIAH v. SMT. JALAJAMMA ALIAS GANGA ALIAS GANGAMMA

WA/1511/2023 · 2026-02-02

Anu Sivaraman, Vijaykumar A Patil

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5885-DB WA No. 1511 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1511 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHAPPA @ HANUMANTHAIAH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.151, MANGANAHALLI, SULLIKERE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 060. 2. CHICKAHANUMANTHAIAH S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.421/45, ANJENYA TEMPLE ROAD, MANGANAHALLI, SULLIKERE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 060. 3. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.152, MANGANAHALLI, SULLIKERE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 060. 4. KUMARA N S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.152, MANGANAHALLI, Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5885-DB WA No. 1511 of 2023 SULLIKERE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 060. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.V. MOHAN ADEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JALAJAMMA ALIAS GANGA ALIAS GANGAMMA W/O VENKATESH M AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NEAR MUTHURAYASWAMY TEMPLE, MANGANAHALLI, SULLIKERE POST, BANGALORE-560 060. 2. STATE BY KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEVELOPMENT GATE NO.3, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU URBAN, 5 KARIAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE-560 050. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICER, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5885-DB WA No. 1511 of 2023 BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. 7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KODIGEHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KODIGEHALLI, KODIGEHALLI POST YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP FOR R2-R4; RI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/08/2023 IN WP NO.13755/2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed in WP.No.13755/2022, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the endorsement dated 07.05.2022 issued by respondent No.7 herein and writ of mandamus was issued directing - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5885-DB WA No. 1511 of 2023 respondent Nos.6 and 7 herein to carry out the necessary survey and thereafter, consider the application of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein for change of khata in the name of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein submits that respondent No.1 initiated contempt proceedings and in the said contempt proceedings, respondent No.7 issued an endorsement which was accepted, following which the contempt proceedings were dropped. Thereafter, the original petitioner assailed the said endorsement before respondent No.6 i.e. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath Office, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru by filing an Appeal No.7/2025-26. 3. In view of the subsequent events and taking note of the fact that the appellants are also contesting in the said proceedings, we are of the view that nothing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5885-DB WA No. 1511 of 2023 further survives for adjudication in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38