Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9261 (KAR)

SRI P DHARMI CHAND v. THE TALUK LAND SURVEYOR

WP/22113/2025 · 2026-04-21

R Devdas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21410 WP No. 22113 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 22113 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. P. DHARMI CHAND, S/O. LATE SRI. B. PUKHRAJ, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT PARAMESHWARA JEWELLERS, MARKET ROAD, HOSKOTE TOWN - 562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE TALUK LAND SURVEYOR HOSKOTE - 562 114, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED PRAYS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER ORDER OR WRIT INTER ALIA QUASHING THE NOTICES DATED NIL BEARING NO. THHSK- LNDO NCR 68/2025 ISSUED BY THE TALUK LAND SURVEYOR, HOSKOTE, (ANNEXURE-F, H AND K TO THIS WRIT PETITION) AND FURTHER PRAYS THAT THE TALUK LAND SURVEYOR, HOSKOTE, TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 13/04/2024 BE DIRECTED TO RECTIFY RTC Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21410 WP No. 22113 of 2025 WHICH SHOWS ERRONEOUSLY THE 30 GUNTAS OF LAND AS KHARAB LAND, WHICH IS NOT (ANNEXURE L) AND PRAYS FOR SUCH FOR SUCH OTHER ORDER AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE 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 09.04.2026, the following order was passed: "Finally, a week's time is granted to comply with the office objections. If office objections are not complied with, re-list this matter on 17.04.2026 for "Dismissal". 2. Office objections have not been complied with. 3. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11