SRI. C. MANJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Upholding the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the writ petition stands dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment
#1. SRI. C. MANJU S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.2554/2, 3RD CROSS, KALIADASA ROAD, ONTIKOPPAL, MYSORE - 570 002.
#2. SRI. M MAHADAVU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. MADDAPPA, R/A KOORGAHALLI GRAMA, BELWADI POST, YELAVALA HOBLI, MYSORE - 571 130.
#3. SRI. SHIVANANJAGOWDA S/O LATE SRI. NINGEGOWDA @ MEDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A KUKKERIHUNDI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATANA TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
#4. SRI MAHADEVU, S/O SRI NINGAGOWDA @ VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10780 WP No. 5663 of 2026 HC-KAR MYSURU TQ AND DISTRICT - 570 018. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE) AND:
#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
#2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.
#3. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, MYSORE SUB DIVISION, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001.
#4. THE COMMISSIONER, MUDA, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.
#5. THE SLAO, MUDA JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.
#6. THE TAHASILDAR, MYSORE TQ, DISTRICT- 570 005.
#7. SRI. KANTHA, S/O LATE MONDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10780 WP No. 5663 of 2026 HC-KAR
#8. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O KANTHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
#9. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O KANTHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
#10. SRI. MURTHY, S/O KANTHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
#11. SRI. RAVI, S/O KANTHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 11 ARE ALL RESIDING AT MODALAHALLI VILLAGE, NELAMANGALATALUK, MANDYA - 562 123.
#12. SMT. M DODDACHIKKAMMA, D/O LATE C. JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
#13. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, D/O LATE C JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
#14. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O RAACHANANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
#15. SMT. CHIKKAMMA, W/O PUTTABASAVANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10780 WP No. 5663 of 2026 HC-KAR
#16. SRI. J MAHADEVAPPA D/O LATE C JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
#17. SRI. J CHIKKANNA D/O LATE C. JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
#18. SRI. J. SHIVANNA D/O LATE C. JAVARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.357, NAYAKARA BEEDI, HINKAL, MYSURU - 570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 14.01.2026 IN CASE NO. R.P/24/2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-F, AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate notice for respondents No.1 to 6. Notice to respondent Nos.7 to 18 is not necessary for the following reasons. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10780 WP No. 5663 of 2026 HC-KAR
#2. Learned Additional Government Advocate raises a preliminary objection that having regard to the amendment brought to Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, w.e.f., 10.01.2025, petitioners will have to approach the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal questioning the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act.
#3. Upholding the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the writ petition stands dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
#4. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10780 WP No. 5663 of 2026 HC-KAR Office hereby directed return original/certified copies to the petitioners while retaining a copy of the same for the file. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
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.