Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Narashimaiah vs the State of Karnataka

Narashimaiah vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jun 25, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1555762

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/18330/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narashimaiah

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....spoorthi v., hcgp for r1 to r4) this petition is filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, praying to quash the notification issued by respondent no.4, dated 03.06.2026 as per annexures-g and h proposing to conduct auction of the agricultural property more fully described in the schedule below and etc. this petition coming on for preliminary hearing, through physical hearing/video conferencing, this day, order was made therein as under: -3- coram: hon'ble mr. justice m.i.arunoral order1. after arguing the matter for sometime, learned counselfor the petitioners fairly submits that, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy and he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the alternative remedy.2. for the aforementioned reasons, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority in the manner known to law, the writ petition stands dismissed.3. if the petitioners prefer an appeal, they will be entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the limitation act, 1963.4. registry is directed to return the original documents to the petitioners after retaining the xerox copy of the same. sd/- (m.i.arun) judge pgg list no.: 1 sl no.: 2

Full Judgment

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 18330 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN:

1. NARASHIMAIAH S/O CHIKHANARASHIMIAH THONDHEGERE AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS

2. CHIKKANARASHIMIAH

S/O NARASHIMIAH THONDHEGERE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Digitally 3. PRAKASH signed by V S/O NARASHIMIAH THONDHEGERE MANJUSHA BAI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Location: THAVAREKRE HANCHE HIGH COURT OF TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT -2- M S BUILDING

2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALI ASKAR ROAD

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF ALI ASKAR ROAD

4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF

5. TUMAKUR KYGARIKA SAHAKARA

SANGHA NIYAMITHA BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4, DATED 03.06.2026 AS PER ANNEXURES-G AND H PROPOSING TO CONDUCT AUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE BELOW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel

for the petitioners fairly submits that, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy and he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the alternative remedy.

2. For the aforementioned reasons, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate authority in the manner known to law, the writ petition stands dismissed.

3. If the petitioners prefer an appeal, they will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. Registry is directed to return the original documents to the petitioners after retaining the xerox copy of the same. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial