Karnataka High Court
WA/947/2026 of SRI T R GOPALAIAH Vs SRI SHIVASHANKAR on 17 April 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:21280-DB WA No. 947 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2026 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI T R GOPALAIAH S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2026 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI T R GOPALAIAH
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPUR HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-5625125,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MITHUN G A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI SHIVASHANKAR
S/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O THINDLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPUR HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU 562 512.
2.
SRI. T.S. SHIVANNA
S/O CHIKKABASAPPA
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O THINDLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPUR HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK-5625125.
3.
THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL-5625125,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
4.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-3 AND R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN RP NO.859/2022 DATED
23/09/2025, HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT IS
THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BY
ALLOWING THIS MEMORANDUM OF WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The office objection regarding maintainability is over ruled.
2. The present intra Court appeal is filed impugning the judgment and order dated 23.09.2025 passed in R.P.No.859/2022 c/w R.P.Nos.863/2022, 492/2023 and 493/2023, which came to be filed for review of order dated 31.05.2022 in W.P.Nos.21538/2010 and 14533/2008. The learned Single Judge while allowing the review petition in paragraph Nos.4 to 6 has recorded as under: “4. Learned Counsel for the respondent viz., Sri T.R.Gopalaiah, submits that this Court has taken into consideration the fact that Sri T.S.Shivanna never denied that his application filed earlier was rejected in the year 1982. This Court therefore came to a conclusion that Sri T.S.Shivanna along with Sri Shivashankar could not have maintained a second application.
HC-KAR
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are several other issues that require consideration, having regard to the fact that it is now contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that Sri T.R. Gopalaiah also filed an application in LRF ATC 100/1975-76 and the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal on 31.08.1975. No doubt, the said order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside at the hands of this Court in W.P.No.14645/1984 which was renumbered as W.P.No.12956/1996 dated 13.10.1998, but the issue that is required to be considered is whether T.S.Shivanna had an independent claim or whether he claimed under Sri Nanjundappa, who is also the father of Sri Shivashankar. These are all issues that are to be considered at the hands of this Court.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitions has made out a case that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.”
3. The learned Single Judge has directed re-hearing of the writ petitions afresh after recalling the earlier order dated 31.05.2022, passed in the review petition as mentioned in paragraph Nos.4 to 6 of the impugned judgment, extracted hereinabove. All
HC-KAR
contentions of the parties are left open by the learned Single Judge.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference inasmuch as whether Sri.T.S.Shivanna would have an independent claim or whether he claim under his father Nanjundappa, who is also father of Sri.Shivashankar, these issues are to be considered by the Court, which were earlier not considered in the judgment and order dated 31.05.2022. By keeping all the contentions open, the writ petitioners are to be re-heard.
5. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed, with liberty to the parties to take all contentions which are available under the law in support of their case and put forth before the learned Single Judge.
HC-KAR
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20