Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkataramanappa Since Dead Rep By ... vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
WA No. 808 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LRS
1. SMT. KRISHNAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
2. SRI. V. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI. V. RAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
by
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA 4. SRI. V. NARAYANASWAMY
Location: High
Court of S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
6. SMT. KANAKA MANJUNATH
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
WA No. 808 of 2022
7. SMT. SHARADHA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
8. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
9. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
10. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGLAURU-560 064
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
KEMPE GOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
WA No. 808 of 2022
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
5. SRI. C.N. VENATARMA IYENGAR
S/O LATE NARASIMHA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 97 YEARS
R/AT. PALANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA POST
BENGALURU-560 064
6. SMT. AMRITHA DEVAIAH
W/O LAE C.N. DEVANATH
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/AT No.425, JALAVAYU VIHAR
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 043
7. SRI. C.N. VARADARAJAN
S/O LATE NARASIMHA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS
R/AT. PALANAHALLI VILLAGE
YELAHANKA POST
BENGALURU-560 064
8. SMT. C.N. CHOKKAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMHA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT. No.65, SRIRANGAM
15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 065
9. SRI. C.N. LOKAMATHA
W/O K.N. RANGANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT. 117/1 (NEW No.39)
KAVERI NAGARA, B.S.K II STAGE
BENGALURU-560 085
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. PRASHANT N KANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
WA No. 808 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS
(b) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, BENGALURU BENCH AT BENGALURU IN WP
No.47186/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) DATED 01.06.2022 BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 01.06.2022 in
W.P.No.47186/2012.
2. The appellants are the writ petitioners. They
have challenged the order passed by respondent No.2-
Deputy Commissioner dated 21.08.2012 in revision
petition No.301/2009-10 which was produced as
Annexure-J along with the writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
3. The learned Single Judge had found that the
Deputy Commissioner had only remanded the matter to
the Tahsildar with a direction to consider as to whether
there was an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in
favour of petitioner's father and as such, no prejudice is
caused to the petitioner. The writ petition was accordingly,
dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that pursuant to dismissal of the writ petition by the
learned Single Judge, the Tahsildar had considered the
matter and passed an order on 23.11.2023, which is
produced along with the memo dated 15.11.2024. It is
submitted that the said order has been subjected to an
appeal. It is submitted that further orders had also been
passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 09.07.2024.
5. It is submitted that since the Tahsildar had
already acted upon the directions of the Deputy
Commissioner and had passed the orders, nothing
survives for consideration in this appeal. This appeal is
NC: 2025:KHC:9253-DB
therefore, disposed of without prejudice to the
contentions of the appellants and their right to take up the
matter in appropriate proceedings, if there are any
subsisting rights.
It is made clear that this will not prejudice the parties
in any title dispute pending between them as on today.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PN
