SMT. PUTTAMMA v. STATE BY COURT OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
i) The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 22900 OF 2026 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O. SOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT: KESAVATTURU VILLAGE, KONANURU HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DT - 573 102. (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
STATE BY CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, OFFICE OF SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, HASSAN - 573 201. HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:39482 WP No. 22900 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010502912026
POLICE INSPECTOR, D.C.R.B DIVISION, HASSAN (C.E.N CRIME POLICE, HASSAN), REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKLESHPURA SUBDIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 573 134.
THE TEHSILDAR, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 573 102. (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED IN NO.L.N.D./HE.JA.YO(DA): ORDER DATED 12/06/2023 07/2011-12 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY WHICH THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HAS CANCELLED MEMORANDUM 02/01/2012 O.M.NO.HE.JA.YO(DA):07/2011-12 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S LAND MEASURING 4 ACRES LAND SITUATED AT SY.NO.134, BLOCK NO.1, KESAVATHURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT AND ETC., OFFICIAL DATED THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:39482 WP No. 22900 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010502912026 ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure-A), passed by respondent No.2.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the same would indicate that, under similar circumstances, this Court in WP.No.11731/2025 disposed of on 22.04.2025, has quashed the identical orders passed by respondent No.2 and the matter has been remitted to respondent No.2 to implead the petitioner as one of the respondents therein and thereafter, reconsider the issue afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Operative part
4. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: HC-KAR - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:39482 WP No. 22900 of 2026 CNR: KAHC010502912026 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in terms of the observation made above and take decision in the matter in accordance with law. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: i) The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.