Karnataka High Court
WP/3215/2026 of SMT. YOGALAKSHMI @ KUPPA AMMAL Vs SRI. RAMESH BABU B on 6 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:33695-DB WP No. 3215 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2026 (KLGP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YOGALAKSHMI @ KUPPA AMMAL W/O LATE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2026 (KLGP)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. YOGALAKSHMI @
KUPPA AMMAL
W/O LATE ANNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/T NO.87-G, F STREET,
1ST CROSS MAGADI ROAD,
KESHAVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560023
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA C., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
1.
SRI. RAMESH BABU B
S/O P VASUDEVAN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/T NO. 18, KHATA NO.22,
'F' STREET, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
MAGADI ROAD, KESHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560023
2.
THE COMMISSIONER,
BBMP,
BENGALURU BENGALURU
URBAN DISTRICT-560002
3.
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER,
BBMP,
BENGALURU BENGALURU
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B
K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
URBAN DISTRICT-560002
4.
KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
REP BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NO.55, ABAYA COMPLEX RISALDAR STREET
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU 560020
5.
THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.SUMATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. B.S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
PORTION
OF
THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
OF LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURTS, AT BENGALURU (COURT HALL-2) IN DATED 05/01/2026 IN L.G.C (P) NO.1903/2018 IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE AND TAKING POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY PRODUCED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
None appeared for the petitioner either in the first call or in the revised call.
2. Even otherwise, the writ petition would not be maintainable against the order of conviction passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Special Court, in view of the specific provision of Section 17-A of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, which reads as under :- "[17-A. Appeals.- (1) An appeal against any final order by the special Court determining the civil liability of the parties shall lie to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law,-
(i) in an appeal under this sub section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal; and
(ii) the appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal be allowed to argue that the case does not involve any such question:
HC-KAR
Provided that, appeal shall be filed before the High Court within thirty days from the date of the order. Provided further that, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of thirty days, the High Court shall condone the same, on sufficient cause being shown, but not beyond a period of sixty days.
(2) Any appeal against order of acquittal or conviction determining any criminal liability under this Act shall lie to the High Court. The High Court may exercise, so far as may be applicable, all the powers conferred by the chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) on a High Court as if, the special Court were a court of sessions trying cases within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court.]"
3. We therefore, dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable. The petitioner may take recourse to appropriate remedy, if so advised, in accordance with the law. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NG CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5