(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of with a specific
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Tumkur Taluk to consider the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-H dated 25.11.2025 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as…
Judgment
SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O. LATE MANDAIAH @ MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT. KAIDALA VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 118. (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
THE TAHASILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18073 WP No. 9439 of 2026 HC-KAR DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 101. (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE TAHASILDAR, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU, TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25-11-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, GIVEN BY REQUESTING TO MAKE ENTRY OF THE NAME OF SRI.MANDAIAH, HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER, FOR SY.NO.12 OF KAIDALA VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, MEASURING 5 ACRES 22 GUNTAS, AS PER THE ORDER OF GRANT PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INAM ABOLITION IN CASE NO.INA 3/M.I.T-61/1974-75 DATED 30-08-1975, VIDE ANNEXURE A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18073 WP No. 9439 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for both the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2- Tahsildar, Tumkur Taluk has not considered the application given by the petitioner as found at Annexure-H which was received by the Tahsildar on 25.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at Annexure-A is the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in proceedings bearing No.INA 5/M.I.T. 61-1974-75, conferring occupancy rights favour of the applicant, Sri. Mandaiah, s/o Puttaiah. The Special Deputy Commissioner registered the applicant Sri. Mandaiah as an occupant of the temple lands under Section 6 of the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Religious and Charitable) Act, 1955 and Amendment Act, 1973 in respect of 5 acres and 22 guntas of land in Sy.No.12 of Kaidala Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumkuru Taluk. The petitioner is the wife of late Sri. Mandaiah and the petitioner is aged about - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18073 WP No. 9439 of 2026 HC-KAR 80 years. The petitioner sought for entry of the name of Sri. Mandaiah in column number 9 instead of column number 12 pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and thereafter to consider entry of the name of the legal heirs of late Sri. Mandaiah in the computerized RTC. However the Tahsildar has not passed any orders till date. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is to issue necessary directions Tahsildar consider representation/application given by the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a time frame.
Operative part
Having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of with a specific direction to respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Tumkur Taluk to consider the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-H dated 25.11.2025 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18073 WP No. 9439 of 2026 HC-KAR Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petitioner, writ petition stands disposed of with a specific
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Karnataka Inams Abolition (Religious and Charitable) Act, 1955 — s. 6; Amendment Act, 1973.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 25 Nov 2025. The bench was R DEVDAS.
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.