LOKESH K R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: R DEVDAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2026-04-21. LOKESH K R v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - WP No. 25380 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ST DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 25380 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: LOKESH K. R, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE. RAMASWAMY REDDY, R/AT NERIGA VILLAGE, KUGUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGESH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, by JUANITA MS BUILDINGS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, THEJESWINI BENGALURU - 560 001. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYABHAVANA, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SRI. THIMMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE NERIGA VILLAGE, KUGURU POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. - 2 - WP No. 25380 of 2025 REP. BY MUZRAI OFFICER CUM TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. R.
KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 04/04/2025 IN REVENUE APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2007 VIDE ANNEXURE -E PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU WHICH CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 08/03/2007 IN INA. CR. 51/98-99 AND INA. CR. 6/2004-05 VIDE ANNEXURE- D BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. , THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER On 09. 04. 2026, the following order was passed: "Finally, a week's time is granted to comply with the office objections. If office objections are not complied with, re-list this matter on 17. 04. 2026 for "Dismissal". - 3 - WP No. 25380 of 2025 2. Matter is called out. There is no representation for the petitioner. 3. Office objections have not been complied with. 4.
Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No. : 2 Sl No. : 12
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.