SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22251

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND K. V. ARAVIND
SRI MOHANA KUMARA M – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 9651/2026



Reserved on : 27.03.2026 Pronounced on : 17.04.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 9651 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MOHANA KUMARA M., S/O. M. B. CHIKKAMUDLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, OFFICE OF SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ARAVINDA BHAVANA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, Digitally BENGALURU - 560 001.

signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High RESIDING AT No.753, 8TH MAIN, Court of BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 3RD STAGE, Karnataka KATHREGUPPE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RANGANATH R PATEL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, ROOM No.106, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, No.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.

4. SMT. KAVYASHREE H. G. , HUSBAND'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS SHIRASTEDAR, OFFICE OF LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - 5, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU - 560 020.

5. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DIVISION, HIGH VIEW, VINOBA ROAD, OPPOSITE KALAMANDIR, MYSURU - 570005.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R5;

SRI J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.03.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.4180/2025 C/W APPLICATION No.4300/2025 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.4180/2025 C/W APPLICATION No.4300/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B AND D RESPECTIVELY), AS PRAYED FOR.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Ranganath R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Sri J.D. Kashinath, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.4.

2. This writ petition is directed against the common order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Application No.4180/2025 c/w Application No.4300/2025.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Accountant and was thereafter promoted as a First Division Assistant (FDA). The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) on 29.07.2022, and his services were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 –

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), where he was posted as Manager, Land Acquisition Officer–I. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from his earlier post of Deputy Tahsildar, Maddur. Subsequently, he was regularly promoted as Deputy Tahsildar/Sheristedar on 31.05.2023 and continued to serve in KIADB.

3.1 Such being the fact, respondent No.4 was posted in place of the petitioner vide order dated 16.09.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal, contending that no posting had been given to him and also challenging the posting of respondent No.4 in his place. It was further contended that respondent No.4 had been posted without the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top