✦ Karnataka High Court

SMT.RAMA @ RAMAKKA v. SESHU

Writ Petition No. 7416 of 2026R DEVDAS3 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

1. SMT.RAMA @ RAMAKKA D/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 207.

2. SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A HURULUGURIKE VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

3. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O V.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A CHIKKAMARALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 130.

4. SRI. VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA R/A HURALAGURKI VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13761 WP No. 7416 of 2026 HC-KAR VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

5. SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O V.RAMASWAMY D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A CHIKKAMARALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 130.

6. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O GOWDARA MUNIANJINAPPA D/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A SAVAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVNAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABLLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA- 561 203.

3.

THE THASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562 110. …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13761 WP No. 7416 of 2026 HC-KAR

4.

SRI.A.CHENNAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

5.

SRI.A.RAJANNA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

6.

SRI.A.AKKALEGOWDA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4, 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT HURULUGURKI VILLAGE, VIJAPYRA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-563 160.

7.

SRI. CHANDRAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A SULIBELE TO GIDDAPPANAHALLI ROAD, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHIVANNA METI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU IN R.P. NO.112/2022-23 DATED 23/01/2026 VIDE ANNX-A AS AB- INITIO VOID AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13761 WP No. 7416 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel Sri. Shivanna Meti, entered appearance for respondent No.4. Notice to other respondents is not necessary for the following reasons:

2. Learned High Court Government Pleader has raised 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 High Court Government Pleader, the writ petition stands dismissed while reserving liberty to the petitioners to - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13761 WP No. 7416 of 2026 HC-KAR approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. However, the respondents are hereby directed not to take any precipitative action for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioners approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

5. Office is directed return the original documents/certified copies, if any, to the petitioners while retaining a copy of the same for the file. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

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. Writ Petition No. 7416 of 2026). ← Search more judgments