Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: February 17 To February 23, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 61 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Nominal Index:

Muniyappa A V AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

Sangappa M Bagewadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

Directorate of Enforcement AND Union of India & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

Suvarana AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

Annapurna AND Kavita & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

Justice PADMARAJ NEMACHANDRA DESAI AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

Anandu & ANR AND The Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Judgments/Orders

Tashildar Duty Bound To Follow Recommendation Made By Land Grant Committee Under Revenue Rules & Issue Certificate : Karnataka HC

Case Title: Muniyappa A V AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1519 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 61.

The Karnataka High Court has said that once a Land Grant Committee issues a recommendation for grant of land, Tahsildar is duty-bound to acknowledge it and proceed with the issuance of the Saguvali Chit (Certificate of Grant) in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Muniyappa A V, who had approached the court seeking a direction to Tashildar to issue saguvali chit in respect of subject land by taking cognizance of the grant order made in favour of his father.

The bench said “The petitioner has already secured a recommendation from the Land Grant Committee which carries legal weight. Once such a recommendation is made under Section 108D(3) (Karnataka Land Revenue Rules), the Tahsildar is duty-bound to acknowledge it and proceed with the issuance of the Saguvali Chit in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.”

Central Govt Employee's Caste Certificate Issued By State Govt Is To Be Verified By District Caste Verification Committee: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Sangappa M Bagewadi AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO. 100100 OF 2024 (-) IN WRIT PETITION NO.109307 OF 2016.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

The Karnataka High Court has held that in case of a Central Government employee, whose caste certificate is issued by the Tahasildar–State Government, it will be the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC) who is the "rightful authority" to verify the certificate of such a Central Government Employee or proposed Central Government Employee.

A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the review petition filed by Sangappa M Bagewadi, challenging the order dated January 11, 2024, contending that matter could not be referred to the DCVC, or no direction could have been issued to the DCVC to initiate proceedings against the petitioner.

"What is also not to be lost sight of is that these caste certificates are not issued by any Central Government officer, but by a State Government officer like the Tahasildar and it is for the State Government to establish a proper system for issuance of caste certificates and verification of caste certificates thereof, which has been sought to be done by the State of Karnataka in terms of the Rules 1992. Of course, in view of the numerous litigations, which come up before this Court even those Rules need to be made robust. Especially by implementing the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that, even if a person is a Central Government employee, the caste certificate having been issued by the Tahasildar-State Government, it is the DCVC, which will be the rightful authority to verify the caste certificate of such a Central Government Employee or proposed Central Government Employee," the court said.

Karnataka High Court Allows ED To Access Aadhar Database For Probing Case Under PMLA

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement AND Union of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 30424 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) and directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to permit ED to examine the Aadhar database of 21 persons including the identity information or authentication records, while probing a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar while allowing the petition said “An investigation into an offence of money laundering being legitimate state interest and the petitioner herein being statutorily empowered to investigate into an offence under PMLA, it is appropriate that a Mandamus be granted directing the respondent No.2 to disclose the true identities of those as sought for herein.”

S. 91 CRPC | Accused Cannot Be Directed To Secure Documents Related To Case From Authorities Using RTI Act: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1639 OF 2025.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused should not be driven for securing documents related to his case under the Right to Information Act, when an application is filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by the pontiff of Murugha Mutt of Chitradurga, Dr Shivamurthy Muruga Sharanaru, who is accused of sexually abusing two minor girls staying in the hostels run by the Mutt.

The petitioner had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking the summoning of certain documents related to the investigation in the case. The prosecution had opposed the plea saying the petitioner could have secured them by filing an application Under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Revenue Officials Refusing To Give Effect To Injunction Order On Premise That They Are Not Party To Suit Condemnable, Defies Logic: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Suvarana AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 1168 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has said that Revenue authorities act as custodians of land records and are duty bound to comply with injunction orders passed by the civil court even when they are not a party to the suit.

A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed this while allowing a petition filed by Suvarna who had questioned an endorsement issued by the Tashildar declining to reflect the interim injunction granted by the competent civil court.

The bench said “Failure to do so would not only amount to willful disobedience of court orders but would also encourage illegal transactions in derogation of the rights of the litigating parties.”

Person Nominated By Deceased Cannot Claim Right Over Estate, Defeat Law Of Succession When Other Legal Heirs Have Claim: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Annapurna AND Kavita & Others

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100004 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a nomination is made during the lifetime of a deceased, it does not amount to divesting of title after the death of the deceased, notwithstanding the legal heirs. It stated that after death, whatever the estate/amount is there, it is devolved to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the governing law of inheritance.

A single judge, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by one Annapurna who had challenged the order of the trial court rejecting her application to be impleaded in the suit filed by the legal heirs of deceased Kantesh Khandagale seeking issuance of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Centre's Order Debarring Retired Judge From Any Govt Appointments For 3 Years

Case Title: Justice PADMARAJ NEMACHANDRA DESAI AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 2274/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 20), quashed and set aside an order dated November 7, 2024 issued by the Central Government order by which former High Court judge, Justice Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai was debarred for three years from any Government appointments.

Justice R Devdas allowed the petition and said, “If the R2 (MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING) would have followed procedures as contemplated in OM (Office Memorandum) and vacancy circular, the R2 would have never issued such impugned order, debarring the petitioner. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.”

If Not Regularised It Would Put A Premium On State's Act Of Exploiting Human Labour: Karnataka HC Directs Regularisation Of 2 Daily Wagers

Case Title: Anandu & ANR AND The Principal Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.100556 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to regularise service of two workmen who have worked for the State government for 39 years and 32 years respectively as daily wage earners.

In doing so the court observed that if the regularisation is not ordered then it would amount to putting a premium on the act of State in exploiting human labour. It thus issued a mandamus to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners from the dates on which they completed ten years of service.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowing the petition filed by Anandu and Ishwar said “Petitioners have in their prime youth worked for the services of the State, as daily wagers. They are continued to be in that position even today, with certain benefits conferred from time to time. They are in the last leg of their services. If their services are not directed to be regularised today, it would be putting a premium on the act of the State, exploiting human labour, as these petitioners, if left in the lurch, will have to wander for their livelihood after having served the State for 39 years and 32 years respectively.”

Suit Seeking Declaration Of Matrimonial Status Is To Be Adjudicated By Family Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi AND Sushilabai & Others

Case No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202179 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

The Karnataka High Court has held that a suit relating to the declaration of a matrimonial status of any person would be a suit falling within the scope of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the family court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate them.

A division bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Arjun Ranappa Hatgundi who had challenged the order of the family court which returned his plaint seeking a declaration that the respondents are not his wife and children. The court had while doing so observed that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.