✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI MAHADEVA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Judgment

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3980 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MAHADEVA S/O RAMESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUMALIKATAPURA VILLAGE, KANAKAGIRI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583283 AADHAR NO. 871106084154 MOBILE NO. 7619537485 PAN NIL EMAIL [email protected] (BY SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH R.L, ADVCOATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001

#2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KOPPAL SUB DIVISION, KOPPAL 583231 Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9458-DB WP No. 3980 of 2026 HC-KAR

#3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER KOPPAL TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583231

#4. THE THASILDAR GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583227

#5. SRI KHANAMILLI BHASKAR RAO S/O K VENKATARANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

#6. SRI KHANAMILLI KARUNA BHASKAR S/O K BHASKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

#7. SRI KHANAMILLI KISHOR S/O K BHASKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

#8. SRI KHANAMILLI VENKATANARAYANA S/O K BHASKAR RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No. 5 TO 8 ARE R/OF HOSAKERA CAMP, GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583268 (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 28.10.2025 AND DTD 12.01.2026, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND TO THE LANDLESS PERSONS BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9458-DB WP No. 3980 of 2026 HC-KAR DOWN AS PER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 UNDER ANNEXURE-B, B1, B2, B3 AND B4 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

#3. Issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4. The learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary steps for distribution of the land to landless persons by following the procedure prescribed under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner states that respondent Nos.5 to 8 hold the land in excess of what is permissible. Therefore, they are required to surrender the excess land which can then be distributed to landless persons. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9458-DB WP No. 3980 of 2026 HC-KAR

#4. We do not consider it necessary to examine the question whether respondent Nos.5 to 8 hold the land in excess of what is permissible. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to issue any notice to the said respondents.

#5. The official respondents may consider the present petitioner's representation as information and if necessary, the respondents may take such steps in accordance with law after conducting the necessary verification.

#7. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. DB WP No. 3980 of 2026). ← Search more judgments