Karnataka High Court
WA/1239/2025 of SMT BHAGYAMMA Vs SRI NARASAIAH on 19 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:30317-DB WA No. 1239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O LATE NANJAPPA,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED 71 YEARS,
2.
GOPALA KRISHNA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(a).
SUMANGALA,
W/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2(b).
NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE GOPALAKISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
3.
KESHAVA,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
4.
GANGARAJU,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5.
SMT. GAYATHRI,
D/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
6.
SMT. SHOWBHAGYA,
D/O LATE NAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
NO.316, 16TH CROSS,
WEVERS COLONY,
NELAMANGALA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. NARASAIAH,
S/O KARIBUDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
2.
S.N. NARAYANA,
S/O S. NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 563 162.
3.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5.
THE THASILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MS. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2, SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R3, R4 AND R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL
HEREIN
AND
SET
ASIDE
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.
ORDER
DATED:23.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
HC-KAR
IN WP No.18696/2022 (KLR) AND GRANT THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT IN THE WP BY ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 23.06.2025. The writ petition was filed by the appellant impugning the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in R.P.No.478/2015-16 by the respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition was disposed of only on the ground that in respect of the same land, suit - O.S.No.200/2014 filed by the respondent No.1 was pending on the file of Civil Court. Learned Single Judge therefore, disposed of the writ petition directing the parties to await the outcome of the civil suit O.S.No.200/2014 filed by the respondents.
HC-KAR
3. There is no decision on merit by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and the writ petition came to be disposed of only on the ground of pendency of the original suit, O.S.No.200/2014 filed by the respondent No.1. Soon after the impugned order was passed on 23.06.2025, the said suit - O.S.No.200/2014 was withdrawn by the respondent No.1 to make the order in the writ petition a fair accomplish.
4. We are of the opinion that this was a trick played by the respondent No.1 to avoid the decision on merit in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. Once the writ petition was disposed of on the submission made by the respondent No.1 that O.S.No.200/2014 was pending on the file of Civil Court and the parties should await the outcome of the said suit, they should have waited for the outcome of the civil suit instead of withdrawing the suit. As the civil suit stands withdrawn and there is no decision on the merit in the writ petition,
HC-KAR
the writ petition requires to be heard and decided on merit. Hence, we allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back to the file of the learned Single Judge for decision on merits in accordance with law.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 ct-vn