Karnataka High Court
WP/19354/2025 of SRI HANUMA BHOVI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:22527 WP No. 19354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 19354 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMA BHOVI S/O.LATE KALA BHAOVI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT AGRAHARA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 19354 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI HANUMA BHOVI
S/O.LATE KALA BHAOVI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573102.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANIKANTA H B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN-573201.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
ARAKALAUGUDU TALUK,
ARAKALAGUDU,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
THE TAHASILDAR
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573102.
5.
SRI. ANDANI SHETTY,
S/O LATE NINGANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6.
SRI VIJAYENDRA
S/O LATE NINGANASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
7.
SRI GOVINDEGOWDA
S/O SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
8.
SMT NAGAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
9.
SRI RAJEGOWDA
S/O SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
10.
SRI N S PRADEEP
S/O SANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 10 ARE
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
DODDAMAGGE HOBLI,
ARAKALAHUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
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 02.12.2024 IN REVISION PETITION NO.127/2023-24 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
On 10.04.2026, the following order was passed: “Finally, two weeks' time is granted for compliance of office objections. If office objections are not complied, list this matter for dismissal on 24.04.2026.”
2. Till today, office objections have not been complied with.
3. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE
KLY CT: JL